AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
The most interesting thing American agricultural statis-
tics provide—in novelty and importance for economic
science—is the comparison of three groupings: by acreage
(conventional); 2) by principal source of income; 3) by
gross income—by value of products not fed to livestock
(probably, gross cash income).
The second and third groupings are a novelty, which
is highly valuable and instructive.
There is no need to say much about the second one. Its
importance lies in showing the economic types of farm
with a bias for some aspect of commercial agriculture. This
grouping gives an excellent idea of the impossibility of com-
paring various types of farm (by acreage), and so of the
limits within which the acreage grouping can be applied
(resp. the conclusions to be drawn from this kind of group-
ing).
To 1) Farms of these types cannot be compared by acreage:
Hay & grain as the principal sources of income. Average
size of farm—159.3 acres (see, pp. 7-8 of my extracts*).
Average expenditure for labour—$76 per farm ($0.47 per
acre).
Flowers & plants. Average size = 6.9 acres. Average
expenditure for labour = $675 per farm, $9 7.4  per
acre, that is, 9,742 ÷ 47 = 207 times greater.
Of course, the number of farms with flowers as the prin-
cipal source of income is insignificant (0.1%), and that
with hay & grain, very large (23.0%), but a calculation of
* See pp. 432-34.—Ed.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
the average would give a false impression. The number
of cereal farms (hay & grain) is 200 (214) times greater
(1,319,856 ÷ 6,159 = 214), but their average expenditure
for labour per acre is 1/207 of the figure for the flower farms.
The same applies, with due alterations, to vegetables
(2.7% of all farms; expenditure for labour = $1.62 per
acre, with an average of $0.43); fruits (1.4% of all farms,
labour—$2.40 per acre), etc.
The cereal farms are large in acreage (159.3 acres on an
average) but have low income (in terms of gross incomes—
an average of $665 of gross income per farm. On the flower
farms—6.9 acres—$2,991 of gross income per farm.
Fruits—74.8 acres, $915 of gross income per farm, etc,
Or take dairy produce. The farms are smaller than average:
121.9 acres versus 146.6—and smaller than the cereal farms
(159.3 acres) but their gross income is higher: $787 (versus
an average of $656, and $760 for the hay & grain farms).
Expenditure for labour per farm = $105 (versus an average
of $64, and $76 for hay & grain) and $0.86 per acre, i.e.
double the average ($0.43 per acre). They have livestock
valued at $5.58 per acre (versus an average of $3.66); imple-
ments & machinery, $1.66 per acre (versus an average of
$0.90).
And that is not unique for the United States, but is
the rule for all capitalist countries. What is the implication
in the case of a switch from cropping to dairy farming?
For example (α) 10 grain farms switch to dairy farming.
(β) 10 farms 8 160 = 1,600 acres
÷ 120 (average dairy produce
 farm)
= 13 farms
The scale of production is reduced. The smaller farm wins
out!
Expenditure for labour
10 8 76 = $
760 (α)
(β)
13 8 105 = $ 1,365 (β) A l m o s t
t w i c e > !!
This means that the switch to dairy farming—as well as
to vegetables, fruits, etc.—leads to a reduction in the

V. I. LENIN

average farm acreage, to an increase in its capitalist expend-
itures (= intensification of its capitalist character), and
to an increase in production
(gross income: α = 760 8 10 = $ 7,600
β = 787 8 13 = $10,231)
To 2) What are the limits for applying the grouping by
acreage? Ordinary, grain, farms are in the majority. In
America, hay & grain = 23%; livestock (extensive N.B.
[mixed with intensive]) = 27.3%; miscellaneous = 18.5%.
Σ = 68.8%. Consequently, general laws may become appar-
ent even in general averages, but only in the gross totals,
wherever there is known to be no switch from old farms
to new (but where does that happen?), from farms with
a similar investment of capital per hectare (per acre).
The great defect of American statistics is the failure
to give combined tables. It would be extremely important
to make a comparison of data on farms by acreage within
the limits of one type of farm. That is not done.
Now for the third, new type of grouping—by gross income.
A comparison of it with the first, conventional grouping
(by acreage) is highly instructive.
The quantity of livestock (value) per acre. By acreage:
there is a regular r e d u c t i o n, without a single excep-
tion: from $4 5 6.7 6 per acre (< 3-acre farms) to $2.15
per acre (1,000 acres and over), i.e., some 200 odd times
greater! This is a ridiculous comparison, because heteroge-
neous magnitudes are involved.
By gross income: there is an i n c r e a s e (with 2 not
very big exceptions: when income is at 0 and at $,500
and > to a maximum) p a r a l l e l to the i n c r e a s e
in acreage (also with two exceptions: at 0 and at the mini-
mum).
Expenditure for labour per acre.
By acreage. There is a reduction (with one exception)
from $40.30 (< 3 acres) to $0.25 (> 1,000 acres). 150-fold!!
By gross income. There is a regular i n c r e a s e from
$0.06 to $0.72.
Expenditure for fertilisers. There is a reduction by acreage
from $2.36 per acre to $0.02.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
By gross income: there is an i n c r e a s e (with one
exception)
from $0.01 to $0.08 (0.06),
implements & machinery per acre.
There is a reduction by acreage
from $7.57 to $0. 9
There is an i n c r e a s e by gross income (with one
exception)
from $0.38 to $1. 1 (0.72).
Average quantity of improved land.
An i n c r e a s e by acreage from 1.7 to 520.0
An i n c r e a s e by gross income (with one excep-
tion) from 18. to 3  .3.
The grouping by income combines the big and the small
acreage farms, where they are similar in the level of capital-
ism. The predominant importance of such a “factor” as
land remains and stands out in the grouping, but it is seen
to be (co)subordinate to capital.
The grouping by income: the differences between the
groups in expenditure for labour ($4—$786) per farm, are
tremendous, but are relatively small per acre ($0.06—$0.72).
The grouping by acreage: the differences between the
groups in expenditure for labour per farm ($16—$1,059)
are less significant, but are tremendous per acre ($40.30—
$0.25)
By acreage: income (gross per farm) by groups: $592—
$1,913 ($55,334), i.e. the differences are very small.
Depending on whether you take gross income or acreage
as the yardstick, the ratios between small and large farms
(in America) turn out to be d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed (by
the main indicators and by the most important one for the
capitalist economy, namely, expenditures for labour).
It 
should 
be 
noted 
that 
America’s 
agricultural
statistics shows up its one main distinction from continental
Europe.

V. I. LENIN

In America, the % of parcel (proletarian?) farms is i n-
s i g n i f i c a n t: 11.8% of farms under 20 acres (= 8 ha).
In Europe, it is g r e a t (in Germany, more than one-
half are under  ha).
In America, agricultural capitalism is more clear-cut,
the division of labour is more crystallised; there are fewer
bonds with the Middle Ages, with the soil-bound labourer;
ground-rent is not so burdensome; there is less intermixing
of commercial agriculture and subsistence farming.

AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS*
(pp. 1-12 of extracts)
Pages
(of extracts)
1.
number of farms in acreage groups, combined with
grouping by income.
2.
idem in %% for both groupings, combined with
each other.
3.
size of farms in divisions compared.
4.
nil.
5.
number of farms by acreage combined with the
principal source of income.
6.
grouping by principal source of income—% of total.
7 and 8 averages for farms by principal source of income.
9-10 averages (and % of total) for farms by acreage
and by income [[without combination]]
11 and 12—nil.
The most interesting aspect of American statistics is
the combination (even if not consistent) of the three group-
ings: by acreage, by income and by principal source of
income.
A comparison of the groupings by acreage and by income
(pp. 10 and 9 of the extracts) clearly shows the superiority
of the l a t t e r.
* Twelfth Census, 1900. Census Reports. Volume V,
Agriculture. Washington, 1902.

V. I. LENIN

Acre
(absolute
The United States
Number of
Under
f a r m s

3-10
10-20
20-50
I n c o m e :
5,739,657
41,882
226,564
407,012
1,257,785
$

53,406
1,346
5,166
8,780
12,999
1- 50
167,569
6,234
38,277
33,279
45,361
50- 100
305,590
7,971
55,049
64,087
89,424
100- 250
1,247,731
13,813
86,470
182,573
454,904
250- 500
1,602,854
4,598
28,025
89,116
471,157
500-1,000
1,378,944
2,822
8,883
21,295
154,017
1,000-2,500
829,443
2,944
3,351
6,412
25,691
2,500 and over
154,120
2,154
1,343
1,470
4,232
 $
0-100
526,565
15,551
98,492
106,146
147,784
 -1,000 and >
983,563
5,098
4,694
7,882
29,923
Rough % of
 low-income
 farms (0-100)
c: 9.1


Rough % of
 high-income
 farms
 (1,000 and >)
17.2


1.9

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
age
figures)
1,000
50-100
100-175
175-260
260-500
500-1,000
and over
1,366,167
1,422,328
490,104
377,992
102,547
47,276
6,159
12,958
1,451
2,149
1,110
1,288
19,470
18,827
2,333
2,290


44,547
33,168
4,922
4,197
1,428

271,547
176,287
33,087
21,061
5,497
2,492
495,051
358,443
87,172
53,121
12,108
4,063
420,014
492,362
152,544
97,349
22,398
7,260
101,790
310,420
182,868
149,868
34,210
12,089
7,589
19,863
25,727
48,157
24,894
18,691
70,176
64,953
8,706
8,636
3,440
2,681
109,379
330,283
208,595
197,825
59,104
30,780


1.8
2.2


V. I. LENIN

Comparison of the two main groupings (by acreage and income) is given in such tables:
Per cent of the number of farms of specified values of products not fed to livestock:
Per cent
50-
100-
250-
500-
1,000-
2,500
of all

1-50
100-
250-
500-
1,000-
2,500
and
farms
over
All farms


Under 3
0.7
2.5
3.7
2.6
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
1.4
3 and under 10
4.0
9.7
22.8
18.0
6.9
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.9
10- 20
7.1
16.5
19.9
21.0
14.6
5.6
1.5
0.8
1.0
20- 50
21.9
24.3
27.1
29.3
36.5
2.4
11.2
3.1
2.7
50- 100
23.8
11.5
11.6
14.6
21.8
30.9
30.5
12.3
4.9
100- 175
24.8
24.3
11.2
10.8
14.1
22.4
35.7
37.4
12.9
increase
175- 260
8.5
2.7
1.4
1.6
2.7
5.4
11.1
22.0
16.7
260- 500
6.6
4.0
1.4
1.4
1.7
3.3
7.1
18.0
31.2 m a x i m u m
decrease
500- 1,000
1.8
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.6
4.1
16.2
1,000 and over
0.8
2.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
12.1
é
l
l
é
l
!
P
N
M
N
Q

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Value of products not fed to livestock
Per cent of the number of farms of specified acreage:
Per cent
1,000
Groups of
of all
Under
3-10
10-20
20-50
50-
100-
175-
260-
500-
and
farms
farms


1,000
over

0.9
3.2
2.3
2.2
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.6
1.1
2.7
1- 50
2.9
14.9
16.9
8.2
3.6
1.4
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.3
50- 100
5.3
19.0
24.3
15.7
7.1
3.3
2.4
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.7
100- 250
21.8
33.0
38.1
44.8
36.2
19.9
12.4
6.8
5.6
5.4
5.3
250- 500
27.9
11.0
12.4
21.9
37.5
36.2
25.2
17.8
14.0
11.8
8.6
500- 1,000
24.0
6.7
3.9
5.2
12.3
30.7
34.6
31.1
25.8
21.8
15.3
1,000- 2,500
14.5
7.0
1.5
1.6
2.0
7.4
21.8
37.3
39.6
33.3
25.6
2,500
 and over
2.7
5.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.4
5.2
12.7
24.3
39.5
Σ=
100.0
100.0
decrease
minimum
increase
100.0
100.0
Under 500
58.8
500-1,000
24.0
6.7
3.9
5.2
12.3
30.7
34.6
31.1
25.8
21.8
15.2
1,000 and >
17.2
12.2
2.1
2.0
2.3
8.0
23.2
42.5
52.3
57.6
65.1
PNNNNNNMNNNNNNQ
é
l
l
l
é
l
l
l

V. I. LENIN

The text on page LXI gives valuable indications about typical farms by divisions
Gross income
Divisions
Acreage
(not fed to
Deriving its principle
livestock)
income from
$
North Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50-100
500-1,000
livestock or dairy
produce
North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100-175
500-1,000
livestock or hay & grain
Western
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100-175
500-1,000
”
”
”
”
”
South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20-50
250-500
cotton
South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20-50
250-500
”

Page 12 of Lenin’s manuscript,
“American Agricultural
Statistics”.
Between May 5 (18), 1914
and December 29, 1915
(January 11, 1916)
Reduced

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
In 1 9 0 0 there were 5 d i v i s i o n s:
1) North Atlantic = New England & Middle Atlantic
1910
2) South Atlantic = idem
1910
3) North Central = West & East North Central
”
4) South Central = East & West South Central
”
5) Western = Mountain & Pacific
”

V. I. LENIN

Absolute figures
Farms classified
Principal source
Total
3 and
10 and
of income
number of
Under 3
under 10
under 20
20-50
farms
The United
5,739,657
41,882
226,564
407,012
1,257,785
 States
Hay and grain
1,319,856
1,725
26,085
59,038
190,197
Vegetables
155,898
4,533
23,780
23,922
41,713
Fruits
82,176
1,979
10,796
13,814
22,604
Livestock
1,564,714
13,969
56,196
81,680
257,861
Dairy produce
357,578
5,181
15,089
20,502
59,066
Tobacco
106,272

5,827
12,317
26,957
Cotton
1,071,545

25,025
112,792
426,689
Rice
5,717


1,185
Sugar
7,344


2,094
Flowers &
6,159
3,764
1,387


 plants
Nursery prod-
2,029


 ucts
Taro


Coffee


Miscellaneous
1,059,416
8,825
60,435
80,764
228,536
Total of under-
 lined—highly
 capitalistic
 crops
724,126
16,366
58,823
72,738
154,502

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(p. 18, table 3):
by acreage
50-100
100- 175
175-260
260-500
500- 1,000
1,000 and
over
1,366,167
1,422,328
490,104
377,992
102,547
47,276
294,822
415,737
152,060
137,339
33,035
9,818
30,375
22,296
5,069
3,086


15,813
10,858
3,061
2,131


384,874
423,741
156,623
125,546
38,163
26,061
90,814
104,932
35,183
20,517
4,514
1,780
25,957
21,037
7,721
4,836
1,063

238,398
164,221
52,726
35,697
11,090
3,910


1,787
1,029


—
—


281,953
257,289
76,756
47,970
12,608
4,280
166,120
161,340
51,939
31,440
7,651
3,207

V. I. LENIN

An extract from
for a general characteristic of grouping
%
 The United States:
Number of farms
23.0
2.7
1.4
27.3
6.2
1.9
18.7
Number of acres in
25.0
1.2
0.7
42.2
5.2
1.1
10.7
 farms
Total value of farm
31.1
2.7
2.1
36.6
8.3
1.0
5.4
 property
Value of farms &
35.2
2.8
2.4
34.3
7.3
1.0
5.3
 improvements
Value of buildings
24.8
3.5
2.4
33.7
12.0
1.5
4.8
Value of implements
28.7
2.8
1.9
30.9
9.4
1.1
6.2
 & machinery
Value of livestock
21.7
1.2
0.7
51.3
7.9
0.8
6.1
Value of products
26.6
2.8
2.0
32.8
7.5
1.7
12.2
Amount expended for
7.4
4.5
4.1
27.8
10.3
1.5
7.4
 labour
Amount expended for
14.6
10.9
3.4
14.0
7.5
5.2
22.5
 fertilisers
Summary in 4 groups:
1) = crops with a great excess in % of expenditure for
capitalist farms.
2) Cotton=special crops with little development of capitalism.
omy forms; vestiges of slavery and its reproduction on a
3) Livestock—a minimum of capitalism.
4) Hay & grain=“medium”&miscellaneous.
*) These, the most capitalist, crops are characterised by a
age (3.4% of land with 6.3% of the farms), and a use of ferti
the land). And it is these crops that grew fastest over
cereals increased=&3.5%, and under rice, &7 8.3%; tobacco
**) <=less than 0.1%.
* This figure has been corrected to 45.0 in the Fourth Russian edition of
Hay
&
grain
Vege-
tables
Fruits
Live-
stock
Dairy-
produce
Tobacco
Cotton

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Table 18 (p. 248)
by principal source of income
of total
Σ
By specialty of
f a r m s
*)
0.1
0.1
0.1
<**)
18.5
12.5
6.3
41.5
46.0
0.1
0.3
<
<
13.5
8.6
3.4
38.5
52.9
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
11.6
15.3
7.0
42.7
42.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
10.6
14.6
7.3
45.8
39.6
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.1
16.1
20.6
8.6
40.9
38.5
0.2
4.4
0.2
0.1
14.0
20.1
10.7
42.7
37.2
0.1
0.2
<
<
10.0
10.9
3.0
31.7
57.4
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.3
12.4
16.0
8.5
39.0
35.0*
0.5
4.0
1.1
0.6
10.8
26.6
16.3
38.2
35.2
0.1
3.8
0.8
0.2
17.2
31.7
24.2
31.8
36.5
labour over the % of land. In other words, these are strictly
Special economic relations (labour of Negroes, natural econ-
capitalist basis).
size of farm which is only about a little over h a l f the aver-
lisers which is 7 t i m e s the average (24.2% versus 3.4% of
the 10 years (1899-1909): in that period the total area under
&17.5%; sugar, &6.6%; vegetables, &5.5%, flowers, &96.1%.
Lenin’s Collected Works (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 80).—Ed.
Rice
Sugar
Flow-
ers and
plants
Nursery
products
Mis-
cella-
neous
Highly
capi-
talistic
The same
without
dairy
produce
medium (hay
& grain&mis-
cellaneous)
slightly
capitalistic
(livestock&
cotton)

V. I. LENIN

Average value of
Implements
All livestock
Land per
& machinery
per
per
farm
acre
farm
acre
farm
acre
The United States
2,285
15.59

0.90

3.66
Hay & grain
3,493
21.93

1.06

3.17
Vegetables
2,325
35.68

2.12

3.74
Fruits
3,878
51.82

2.34

3.35
Livestock
2,871
12.66

0.66
1,009
4.45
Dairy produce
2,669
22.05

1.66

5.58
Tobacco
1,214
13.47

0.85

2.61
Cotton

7.82

0.53

2.11
Rice
2,205
11.59

1.11

1.67
Sugar
12,829
35.30
4,582
12.61

2.63
Flowers
4,550
656.90

32.04

9.07
Nursery products
6,841
83.73

3.26

2.79
Taro

22.56

0.35

2.50
Coffee
3,083
22.48

0.46

1.16
Miscellaneous
1,317
12.33

0.94

2.73

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
The United States
$
Value of all farm
property per
Number of
farm
acre
%
farms
3,574
24.39

5,739,657
All farms
4,834
30.34
23.0
1,319,856
Hay & grain
3,508
53.85
2.7
155,898
Vegetables
5,354
71.54
1.4
82,176
Fruits
4,797
21.14
27.3
1,564,714
Livestock
4,736
39.12
6.2
357,578
Dairy
2,028
22.51
1.9
106,272
Tobacco
1,033
12.36
18.7
1,071,545
Cotton
3,120
16.40
0.1
5,717
Rice
20,483
56.36
0.1
7,344
Sugar
8,518
1,229.72
0.1
6,159
Flowers
9,436
115.49
less than
2,029
Nursery
1,276
29.73


Taro
3,775
27.53
per cent

Coffee
2,250
21.07
18.5
1,059,416
Miscellaneous
Σ= 100.0
Vegetables
2.7
Cereals
23.0
Fruits
1.4
Livestock
27.3
Milk
6.2
Miscellaneous
18.5
Σ = 10.3%
68.8
&
Cotton 18.7
87.5%
&
special
12.5% crops
100.0

V. I. LENIN

Farms classified by principal source of income. *)
(1899)
$
Average expenditures
(all land)
Value of prod-
Average
Average acres
for labour on farms
Number of
ucts not fed
expendi-
improved
Average
 T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
in 1899
acres in farms
to livestock
tures for
land
non-improved
$
$
fertilisers
land in farm
in 1899
per farm
per acre
Average
Average
per acre
per farm
per farm
per farm
All farms

0.43
146.6

0.07
7.3
& 74
Hay & grain

0.47
159.3

0.04
1 1 1.1
& 48
Vegetables

1.62
65.1

0.59
33.8
& 31
Fruits

2.46
74.8

0.30
41.6
& 33
Livestock

0.29
226.9

0.02
86.1
& 140
Dairy produce

0.86
121.9

0.09
63.2
& 58
Tobacco

0.57
90.1

0.30
53.0
& 37
Cotton

0.30
83.6

0.14
42.5
& 41
Rice

1.57
190.3
1,335
0.07
80.9
& 110
Sugar
1,985
5.46
363.4
5,317
0.77
140.5
&223
Flowers & plants

97.42
6.9
2,991
7.41
5.6
&

Nursery products
1,136
13.91
81.7
4,971
0.84
67.7
& 14
Taro

1.18
42.9

0.13
6.8
& 36
Coffee

2.62
137.1

0.08
27.6
& 110
Miscellaneous

0.35
106.8

0.08
46.5
& 60
*) Page CXXVIII.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Capitalist
Low
Non-capi-
Medium
farms *)
T h e U n i t e d
income
talist
farms
S t a t e s*:
farms
farms
$ 500-
High-in-
under
Income
1,000
come farms
$ 100
< $ 500
$ 1,000
and >
Number of farms . . .
9.1
58.8
24.0
17.2
Number of acres in farms
5.1
33.3
23.6
43.1
Total value of farm
 property . . . . . .
2.5
23.7
26.1
50.2
Value of farm & improve-
 ments . . . . . . .
2.3
22.0
25.8
52.2
Value of buildings
. .
2.6
28.8
28.4
42.8
Value of implements &
 machinery . . . . .
2.0
25.3
28.0
46.7
Value of livestock . . .
3.2
24.8
24.2
51.0
Value of products . . .
0.7
22.1
25.6
52.3
Amount expended for
 labour. . . . . . .
0.9
11.8
19.6
69.1
Amount expended for
 fertilisers . . . . .
1.3
29.1
26.1
44.8
*) Farms with an income of > $1,000 must be
as c a p i t a l i s t, because their expenditure for l a b o u r
is high: $158-$786 per farm.
Farms with an income of under $500 must be regarded
as non-capitalist, because their expenditure for labour is
insignificant: under $18 per farm.
* The table was compiled by Lenin on the basis of the data in the
table on pp. 436-37.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

% Table
Classification by value of products
$
T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Total

Number of farms
. . . . . . . . . .
0.9
Number of acres in farms . . . . . . .
1.8
Total value of farm property . . . . . .
0.7
Value of farm & improvements . . . . .
0.6
Value of buildings . . . . . . . . . .
0.3
Value of implements & machinery . . . .
0.4
Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . .
1.4
Value of products
. . . . . . . . . .
—
Amount expended for labour . . . . . .
0.3
Amount expended for fertilisers . . . . .
0.2
Average expenditure for
per farm

 labour (p. CXXVIII, table,
$
per acre
0.08
 CXXII
Average number of acres per farm
146.6
283.2
Average expenditures for fer-
per farm

 tilisers in 1899
$
per acre
0.01
Value of all livestock
$
per farm


per acre
3.66
2.97
Value of implements & ma-
per farm


 chinery
$
per acre
0.90
0.19
Average number of improved land per farm
72.3
33.4
 (acres)
!
!
!
!

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
18, p. 248)
of 1899 not fed to livestock
500-
1,000-
2,500
1- 50
50- 100
100- 250
250- 500
1,000
2,500
and >
2.9
5.3
21.8
27.9
24.0
14.5
2.7
1.2
2.1
10.1
18.1
23.6
23.2
19.9
0.6
1.2
6.6
14.6
26.1
33.3
16.9
0.6
1.1
6.0
13.7
25.8
34.9
17.3
0.7
1.6
8.6
17.6
28.4
31.5
11.3
0.5
1.1
6.9
16.4
28.0
30.9
15.8
0.6
1.2
6.8
14.8
24.2
29.3
21.7
0.1
0.6
5.9
15.5
25.6
32.0
20.3
0.2
0.4
2.5
7.9
19.6
35.9
33.2
0.2
0.9
7.9
19.9
26.1
27.0
17.8


0.06
0.08
0.11
0.19
0.36
0.67
0.72
62.3
58.6
67.9
94.9
143.8
235.0
1,087.8


0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.06


1,088
4,331
1.78
2.01
2.46
3.00
3.75
4.63
3.98


0.38
0.48
0.62
0.82
1.07
1.21
0.72
18.2
20.0
29.2
48.2
84.0
150.5
322.3

V. I. LENIN

Classification by


 T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
under
and
and
and
and
and

under
under
under
under
under


Number of farms. . . . .
0.7
4.0
7.1
21.9
23.8
24.8
Number of acres in farms .
—
0.2
0.7
4.9
11.7
22.9
Total value of farm property .
0.4
1.2
2.1
7.9
16.6
27.9
Value of farm & improve-
 ments . . . . . . . .
0.2
0.9
1.8
7.2
16.0
28.1
Value of buildings . . . .
0.8
2.7
3.6
10.7
20.4
28.9
Value of implements & ma-
 chinery . . . . . . . .
0.3
1.2
2.2
9.0
19.0
28.9
Value of livestock. . . . .
1.2
0.8
1.5
7.0
14.4
25.6
Value of products. . . . .
0.7
1.2
2.5
10.8
18.3
27.3
Amount expended for labour
0.9
1.1
1.8
6.2
12.3
23.5
Amount expended for fer-
 tilisers . . . . . . . .
0.4
1.5
3.4
14.9
21.7
25.7
Expenditures for
per farm


 labour
per acre
40.30
2.95
1.12
0.55
0.46
0.45
Average number of
 acres
per farm
1.9
6.2
14.0
33.0
72.2
135.5
Value of products
 not fed to livestock,


 average per farm
Expenditures for
per farm


 fertilisers
per acre
2.36
0.60
0.33
0.20
0.12
0.07
Value of all live-
per farm


 stock
per acre
456.76
16.32
8.30
5.21
4.51
4.09
Value of imple-
per farm


 ments & machin-
per acre
27.57
6.71
2.95
1.65
1.47
1.14
 ery
Improved land
per farm
1.7
5.6
12.6
26.2
49.3
83.2
Rough estimate:
In 1910, 45.9% of the farms used hired labour. From 1900
to 1910, the number of hired labourers increased by
(r o u g h l y) 27-48%.
Assuming that in 1900, 40% of the farms used hired
labour.
Take 40% of the medium, 24.88 40%=9.92. About 10%.
Take 2.5 times less from the small farms: 40÷>=
<= 16; 57.5 8 16= 9.2= 9%.
Take 3 times more from the big farms: 4 0 8 3=120%;
17.7 8 120= 21.24%. 9%—10%—21%.
!
!
!
!

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
area in acres
Amalgamation (by acreage)


All
and
and
and
1,000
Total
Un-
under
100-

under
under
under
and
der


and >


1,000
over

acres
8.5
6.6
1.8
0.8
11.8
57.5
24.8
17.7
Number of
 farms
12.3
15.4
8.1
23.8
0.9
17.5
22.9
59.6
Land
15.1
15.3
5.9
7.6
3.7
28.2
27.9
43.9
Value of land
15.9
16.4
6.1
7.4
2.9
26.1
28.1
45.8
13.9
12.0
4.0
3.0
7.1
38.2
28.9
32.9
13.6
13.1
5.1
7.6
3.7
31.7
28.9
39.4
Implements &
 machinery
13.3
15.2
7.0
14.0
3.5
24.9
25.6
49.5
13.7
13.6
5.2
6.7
4.4
33.5
27.3
39.2
Value of prod-
 ucts
14.6
17.1
8.8
13.7
3.8
22.3
23.5
54.2
Expenditures
 for labour
 and ferti-
 lisers
12.5
10.0
4.2
5.7
5.3
41.9
25.7
32.4


1,059
0.52
0.48
0.47
0.25
210.8
343.1
661.9
4,237.3
146.6
1,054
1,354
1,913
5,334


0.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.07

1,239
2,094
9,101

3.96
3.61
3.16
2.15
3.66


1,222

1.00
0.77
0.57
0.29
0.90
129.0
191.4
287.5
520.0
72.3
Approximate:
((1900: 22.3 23.5 54.2 [% of expenditure for labour]
8 40
9.0&9.4&21.6= 40%
About: 11&12.3&17.7= 40

V. I. LENIN

Comparison of the
1900
By income
[see p. 9]
farms
(Political-economic)
Per cent of total
significance of
total of three figures in
respective figures:
horizontal rows=100
Common and basic
Number of
 figures:
farms
58.8
24.0
17.2
Acreage
33.3
23.6
43.1
Scale of produc-
Scale of
Value of
 tion:
production
product
22.1
25.6
52.3
 Value of im-
Level of farming;
plements and
 machinery, care
Constant
machinery
25.3
28.0
46.7
 of the land
capital
 Expen-
ditures for
fertilisers
29.1
26.1
44.8
Capitalist charac-
Variable
 Expendi-
 ter of enter-
capital
tures for
 prise
hired labour
11.3
19.6
69.1
% of farms
1910
% of all land
implements
and
machinery
* See p. 435.—Ed.
Non-capita-
list
 <$500 of
 income
Medium
($500-1,000)
Capitalist
(1,000 and >)
]
^
] ^
PNMNQ

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
three groupings:


By principal
By acreage
source of income
[see p. 10]*
[see p. 6]**
farms
farms
C o m m e r c i a l
crops
57.5
24.8
17.7
46.0
41.5
12.5

Index of extensive-
17.5
22.9
59.6
52.9
38.5
8.6

 ness of enterprise
33.5
27.3
39.2
35.0***
39.0
16.0

31.7
28.9
39.4
37.2
42.7
20.1

 Index of
 intensiveness of
 enterprise
41.9
25.7
32.4
36.5
31.8
31.7

22.3
23.5
54.2
35.2
38.2
26.6

5 8.0
23.8
18.2
1 7.9
23.4
58.7
2 9.9
28.9
41.2
57.5
— 12.5 =45.0
33.5
— 16.0 =17.5
31.7
— 20.1 =11.6
41.9
— 31.7 =10.2
* See p. 439.—Ed.
** See p. 431.—Ed.
*** In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works (see
present edition, Vol. 22, p. 80) the figure has been corrected to 45. 0.—Ed.
Small (under
100 acres)
Medium
(100-17 5)
Large
(17 5 and >)
Slightly
capitalist
 livestock
 and cotton
Medium
 hay and
 grain—mis-
 cellaneous
Highly capi-
talist
 spec.
 crops
PNNMNNQ
}
é
l
l
l
l
]
^
]
^
}
]
^

V. I. LENIN

Thirteenth Census of the United States, taken in the
(p. 30, table 2)
Total population:
Urban
population
All farmland
1900-
1910
1900-
% of
1910
Three main
mill
%
(mill.)
(mill.)
pop.
(mill.)
% of
sections of the
acres
1910
%
1900
%
increase
1900 1910 increase
United States
The North
587.3
30.9
55.8
60.6
47.4
62.3
17.7
32.7
25.2
29.8
The South
562.1
29.5
29.4
32.0
24.5
32.3
19.8
6.6
4.7
41.4
The West
753.4
39.6
6.8
7.4
4.1
5.4
66.8
3.3
1.7
89.6
The U.S.A.
1,903.3 100.0
92.0
100.0
76.0 100.0
21.0
42.6
31.6
34.8
(p. 34, table 3)
Improved land
% of
% of
in farms
land in
% of
improved
(mill. acres)
% of
farms to
improved
land to
improved
total
land in
total
%
land
acreage
farms
acreage
of in-
1910
1900 crease
(1910)
1910
1900
1910
1900
The North


10.9
60.6
70.4
65.1
70.1
49.3
The South


19.5
31.5
63.1
64.4
42.5
26.8
The West


39.8
7.9
14.7
12.4
34.2
5.0
The U.S.A.


15.4
100.0
46.2
44.1
54.4
25.1

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
year 1910. Volume V. Agriculture. Washington 1913
Rural
All land
population
in farms
Number of farms
1900-
%
(’000)
1910
of urban
% of
population
%
(mill.
%
(mill.)
in-
of in-
acres) of in-
1900
1910
crease
(1910)
1910
1900 crease
1910
1900 crease
23.1
22.2
3.9
58.6
2,891
2,874
0.6


8.0
22.7
19.9
1 4.8
22.5
3,097
2,620
18.2


—2.1
3.5
2.3
49.7
48.8


53.7
1 1 1

18.2
49.3
44.4
11.2
46.3
6,361
5,737
10.9


4.8
(p. 37, t. 4)
(p. 42, t. 7)
Average acreage per farm
Value or all
Value of land
all land:
improved land:
farm property
and buildings
%
%
($ mill.)
%
($ mill.)
%
of in-
of in-
of in-
of in-
1910
1900 crease
1910
1900 crease
1910
1900
crease
1910
1900
crease
143.0
133.2
7.4
100.3
90.9
10.3
27,481
14,455
80.1
23,650
12,041
96.4
1 1 4.4
138.2
—17.2
48.6
48.1
1.0
8,972
4,270
110.1
7,353
3,279
124.3
296.9 386.1
—23.1
101.7
111.8
—9.0
4,538
1,715
164.7
3,798
1,295
193.4
138.1
146.2
—5.5
75.2
72.2
4.2
40,991
20,440
100.5
34,801
16,615
109.5

V. I. LENIN

Value of
Value of
Value of
Value of
land
buildings
implements
livestock
and machin-
($ mill.)
($ mill.)
ery ($ mill.)
($ mill.)
1910
1900
%&
1910
1900
%&
1910 1900 %&
1910
1900
%&
The North
19,129
9,369 104.2 4,521 2,672
69.2
856 517
65.6 2,975
1,897 56.8
The South
5,926
2,562
131.3 1,427

99.0
293 180
62.9 1,325
811 63.5
The West
3,420
1,127 203.6

167 125.0
1 1 6
53 119.0

367 70.1
The U.S.A. 28,475
13,058
118.1 6,325 3,556
77.8 1,265 750
68.7 4,925 3,075 60.1
Value ($ mlll.)
p. 538,
p. 476, p. 494, page 507, p. 517, p. 520,
t. 8
t. 3 t. 1 t. 33 t. 41 t. 45
(My
(My fig-
figure)
ures all
of all
all live- farm prod-
of
of
of
of
of
domes-
stock
ucts
dairy
wool
poul-
eggs
honey tic ani-
prod-
(α&β)
of
prod-
try
and
mals
ucts
all
ucts
wax
sold or
(β)
crops
(1)
slaught-
(α)
tered
1909
1909
1909
1909
1909
1909
1909
1909
1909
The North
3,120


1,258
2,095
5,215
The South
1,922


2,594
The West


The U.S.A. 5,487


1,833
3,060
8,547
The same data ($ mlll.) but for 1899
(2)
?
The North
1,812


data
The South


not
The West


com-
parable
The U.S.A. 2,999


(p. 520)
p. 560, t.  4
Average expenditures per acre
improved land in farms for
% of
increase
% of farms
labour
fertilisers
in expend-
reporting expend-
iture for
iture for labour
1909
1899
1909
1899
labour
The North
55.1
1.26
0.82
0.13
0.09
& 70.8
The South
36.6
1.13
0.69
0.50
0.23
& 87.1
The West
52.5
3.25
2.07
0.06
0.04
& 119.0
The U.S.A.
45.9
1.36
0.86
0.24
0.13
& 82.3
 p.t.o.*
. . .
N o t e: (1) The original give Σ= 656. But this is wrong. Exclud
* See pp. 482-83.—Ed.
]
]

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(p. 43, t. 8) Average value of farm property per acre of land in farms
($ and %)
All farm
Land
Buildings
Implements
Livestock
property
and machinery
1910
1900
%&
1910
1900
%&
1910 1900
%& 1910 1900 %& 1910 1900 %&
66.46
37.77
76.0
46.26 24.48
89.0 10.93 6.98
56.6 2.07
1.35 53.3 7.20 4.96 45.2
25.31
11.79
114.7
16.72
7.08 136.2
4.03 1.98 103.5 0.83 0.50 66.0 3.74 2.24 67.0
40.93
18.28
123.9
30.86 12.01
157.0
3.40 1.79
89.9 1.04 0.56 85.7 5.63 3.92 43.6
46.64 24.37
91.4
32.40 15.57 108.1
7.20 4.24
69.8 1.44 0.89
61.8 5.60 3.67 52.6
p. 540, t. 10
Percentage of value of all crops (1909)
crops
value
with
Σ
of all
acreage
hay
tobac-
fruits
of
crops
report-
and
co and
vege-
and
fore-
%
ed
cereals
forage
cotton
tables
nuts
going

93.7
6.6
18. 8
0.9
7. 5
3.3
93.1

92. 8
29.3
5.1
4 6.8
7. 5
2.6
91.3

82. 2
33. 1
31. 7
0.0
8.5
1 5.5
88. 8

92. 5
48.6
15. 0
16.9
7. 6
4.0
92.1
(p. 513, t. 12).
Percentage of improved farmland (1909)

67.8
46.2
18.8
0.1
1.5
0.1
86.7

63.3
32.1
5.7
1.9
1.5
0.1
61.3

51.4
24.1
4.2
0.0
1.4
0.1
49.8

65.1
40.0
15.1
7.0
1.5
0.1
63.7
ing (N.B.) home consumption—(2) Including home consumption

V. I. LENIN

(p. 97, t. 1)
(p. 99, t. 3)
Farm tenure. Number
Average acreage
Average improved
of farms (’000)
per farm
acreage per farm
The U n i t e d
 S t a t e s
1910
1900
%&
1910
1900
%&
1910
1900
%&
All classes
6,361
5,737
10.9
138.1
146.2 — 5.5
75.2
72.2
4.2
Farms operated by
3,949
3,653
8.1
151.6
152.2 — 0.4
78.5
76.2
3.0
owning en-
Owners
tire farm
3,355
3,202
4.8
138.6
134.7
2.9
69.7
69.2
0.7
leasing addi-
tional land


31.6
225.0
276.4 —18.6
128.1
125.7
1.9
Managers

59 —1.7
924.7 1,481.2 —37.6
211.9
184.6
14.8
Tenants
2,354
2,025
16.3
96.2
96.3 — 0.1
66.4
61.9
7.3
 Ten- share tenants
1,528
1,273
20.0
93.2
92.4
0.9
69.1
65.0
6.3
 ants cash tenants


9.9
101.7
102.9 — 1.2
61.3
56.7
8.1
(p. 105, t. 7) % distribution of farms
p. 106, t. 9
Average
(Σ of vertical columns=100)
The Unit-
The North
ed States
The North The South
The West
(α)
(β)
1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Owners
. 62.1
63.7
72.4
72.6
49.9
52.3
83.8
80.3
139.8 133.0
93.9
88.1
Managers .
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.7
2.2
3.1
301.7 340.9
163.5
152.0
Tenants
.
37.0
35.3
26.5
26.2
49.6
47.0
14.0
16.6
144.9 124.5
115.0
96.1
(p. 141,
Number of
(p. 102, t. 6) Number of farms
% of farms
t. 27
farms
(’000)
The
(’000)
1910 1900 1890 1880 1910 1900 1890 1880
U.S.A.
reporting
domestic
animals
Owners and
1910
1900
 managers 4,007 3,712 3,270 2,384
63.0
64.7
71.6
74.4
Tenants
2,354 2,025 1,295 1,025
37.0
35.3
28.4
25.6
Total
6,035 5,498
 share
1,528 1,273


24.0
22.2
18.4
17.5
Owners
3,794 3,535
 cash


13.0
13.1
10.0
8.0
Managers


 Σ = 6,361 5,737 4,565 4,009 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tenants
2,189 1,909
* This was later pencilled in by Lenin. A separate sheet containing
Leninism under the C.P.S.U. Central Committee.—Ed.
!
PMQ

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(p. 115, t. 19) Number of farms (’000) and % & (—)
T h e N o r t h
T h e S o u t h
T h e W e s t
1910
1900
%&
1910
1900
&%
1910 1900
%&
Total . . . . . 2,891 2,874
0.6
3,097 2,620
18.2


53.7
Owners . . . . 2,091 2,088 &0.1
1,544
1,370


 Owners . . . . 1,749
1,794 —2.5
1,329
1,237
7.5


61.9
 Part owners. .


16.5


61.5


49.8
Managers . . .


2.9

19 —13.2


7.3
Tenants . . . .


1,537
1,231


 Share tenants .


0.6
1,021

32.2


14.7
 Cash tenants .


3.3


12.3


47.7
acreage per farm (α) all land (β) improved land
The South
The West
(α)
(β)
(α)
(β)
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
149.3
162.8
56.4
55.4
241.5
282.8
84.5
94.5
1,514.7 2,734.1
198.6
169.4
2,323.2 3,303.9
439.1
363.2
64.5
71.2
39.3
38.1
313.1
337.4
151.5
148.3
% of farms
with live-
% of farms
stock to all
(p. 145, t. 28)
with horses
Number of farms with
farms
Farms with
horses (’000)
horses (’000)
 1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
 1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
The North
The South
The West
 1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1910
1900
1910 1900
1900 1900
94.9—95.8
4,693
4,531
73.8
79.0
.2,600 2,620
1,771 1,694


96.1—96.7
3,216
3,107
81.5
85.0
..1,873 1,901 1,075 1,032


89.6—9 1.7


79.3
81.3
...


92.9—94.2
1,431
1,376
60.7
67.9
.. 698


..
Total
%
%
%
%
%
%
owners
89.9
91.1
57.1
64.6
85.9 89.3
75.2
managers
89.6
91.0
69.6 –5.6
52.7
tenants
91.1
91.8
44.6 –8.1 86.8 90.0
these calculations is at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-
(My calculation from
Divisions, p. 145, t. 28)
(my calcu-
lation)
my calcu-
lation
% of farms
with
horses
(my calcu-
lation)*

V. I. LENIN

(p. 158, t. 1)
Mortgaged farms
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 8 9 0
Number of farms o w n e d . .
3,948,722
3,638,403
3,142,746
Number of farms mortgaged .
1,327,439
1,127,749
886,957
% . . . . . . . . . . . .
33.6
31.0
28.2
% of mortgaged
The North
41.9
40.9
40.3
farms
The South
23.5
17.2
5.7
p. 160
The West
28.6
21.7
23.1
Number of mortgaged farms
1,006,511
886,957
Value of land and buildings
6,330
$ mill.
3,055
Total debt
. . . . . . . .
1,726
” ”
1,086
% of debt to value . . . . .
7.3%
35.5%
With reference to this increase in the propor-
tion of farms mortgaged, it should be borne in
mind that the fact of mortgage debt is not neces-
sarily an indication of lack of prosperity. There
?
can be no question that American farmers general-
ly were more prosperous in 1910 than at the two
preceding censuses. The percentage of mortgaged
farms is said to be highest in the most prosperous
states, such as Iowa and Wisconsin. In some cases
a farm is mortgaged out of need, in others for
improvements, etc. (p. 158).
The breaking-up of certain plantations into small
farms—farms owned by their operators but mort-
gaged for part of the purchase price—probably also
N.B.
has had something to do with the increase in
the proportion of farms mortgaged in the South
(p. 159).
PNMNQ

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
The number of farms owned by N e g r o e s (coloured people in general, but these are mostly
Negroes)=9  0, 8 8 3 (=14.5%) (1910), including only 17,884 in the North, and 1,858,
in the West. In the S o u t h, there are 8 9 0, 1 4 1, including owners—18,467 , tenants,
6 7 0, 4 7 4 , managers, 1,00.
Thus, in the South, the Whites have more owners than tenants, and the Negroes, vice
versa.
In 1900, the Negroes had 767,764 farms (including 740,670 in the S o u t h). Consequently,
the number of Negro farms increased by &19.6%, and White farms, by &9.5%.
The total farm acreage increased in White farms by &4.4% and in Negro farms,
&11.7%.
Improved land in farms increased: White, &15.2%, Negro, &19.5%.
Value of all farm property increased: White, &99.6%, Negro, &134.0%.
Farmers:
Average farm acreage
Quantity and value of livestock on White
and Negro farms.
The South
White
Negro
White
Negro
Total farms in the U.S.A. (p. 248)
1910 1900 1910 1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Number
Value $
Total


141.3
172.1
47.9
52.1
White 19,655,747
683,996,175
Dairy cows
Owners
60.1
63.0 24.5 25.2
162.1
177.2
71.8
71.6
Negro
969,685
22,240,132
Managers
0.7
0.9
0.1
0.2
1,612.1 2,962.8 291.5
269.0
White 16,780,511
1,903,652,666
Tenants
39.2
36.1 75.3 74.6
83.8
92.5
39.6
44.9
Horses
Negro
649,907
54,942,151
White
3,133,740
413,530,751
Mules
Negro
653,576
84,451,579
In the
S o u t h, the
White s h a re-
t e n a n t s
increased from
492,000 to
637,000
(&29.5%)
and Negro,
from 281,000
to 384,000
(&37.0%)

V. I. LENIN

Concerning the role, importance and place of tenants
vis-à-vis o w n e r s:
Tenant farmers reported a much larger proportion of
the value of land than of the value of buildings, implements
& machinery, or livestock. This is largely due to the fact
that tenant farmers in general are less well-to-do than farm
owners and are less able to furnish their farms with expen-
sive equipment (pp. 100-01). The average for the United
States (1910) shows: the value of owners’ land = 66.8%
of all property, and that of “tenants” = 74.9% (p. 101,
Table 5).
Concerning the owners of farms leased, the authors
(p. 102) refer to the inquiry during the 1900 Census, when
the names of owners of tenant farms were studied. They
say there was no concentration or “absentee landlordism”.
The owners of leased farms are for the most part former
tenants “who have either retired altogether, gone into
other business, or taken up farms in newer sections of the
country”.
“In the South the conditions have at all times
been somewhat different from those in the North,
and many of the tenant farms are parts of planta-
tions of considerable size which date from before
the Civil War.” In the South, “the system of oper-
ation by tenants—chiefly coloured tenants—has
succeeded the system of operation by slave labour”
(102).*
Concerning rent:
The development of the tenant system
is most conspicuous in the South, where
the large plantations formerly operated
by slave labour have in many cases been
broken up into small parcels or tracts and
leased to tenants. As more fully explained
in Chapter I, these plantations are in
* See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 26.—Ed.
N.B.
N.B.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
many cases still operated substantially as
agricultural units, the tenants being sub-
jected to a degree of supervision more or
less similar to that which hired farm
labourers are subjected to in the North”
(p. 104).
“A very low proportion of tenant farms
is ... shown for the Mountain and Pacific
divisions, where it is doubtless attrib-
utable mainly to the fact that those
divisions have been only recently settled
and that many of the farmers in them
are homesteaders who have obtained their
land from the Government” (p. 104).
The whole Chapter II (“Farm tenure”) does not contain
any analysis of the causes of the growth (respective decrease)
in the n u m b e r o f o w n e r s of land. These authors
are bourgeois scum: they gloss over the most important
thing (expropriation of the small farmers)!!
Growth of rural population (1900-10)
. . . . . .
& 11.2%
”
number of farms
. . . . . . . . .
& 10.9%
(less)
”
”
owners . . . . . . . . .
& 8.1% (still less)
An obvious increase in expropriation!!
But the increase is even more evident if we take the
N o r t h, the S o u t h and the W e s t.
The total number of farms has gone up from 5,737,372 to
6,361,502, i.e., by 64,130 (p. 114, Table 18), i.e., by 10. 9
per cent. But in the N o r t h the increase is only 0.6%
(&16,545 farms!!). This is stagnation. Moreover, there
was also an absolute r e d u c t i o n in the number of
farms in three out of the four divisions of the North, namely,
New England, Middle Atlantic and East. In North Central,
there was an a b s o l u t e d r o p i n t h e n u m b e r
o f f a r m s (by 32,000). Only in West North Central
was there an increase by 4 9,000 (hence, in Σ = &16,500).
But West North Central includes states like the two Dakotas,
Nebraska and Kansas, where homesteading is still exten-
sive (see Statistical Abstract, p. 28).
N.B.
N.B.
N.B.
|
|
|
|

V. I. LENIN

In general, the number of owners in the entire North:
1900—2,088,000
1910— 2,091,000
&3,000=0.1%!!!
The entire North
owners:
part owners:
1900
1,794,216
293,612
1910
1,749,267
342,167
—44,949
&48,555
Thus, there was a reduction in the number of owners!!
The number of p a r t owners went up!!
And this same North had 60% of all the improved land in
the United States (1910)!!
In this North, the acreage of improved land increased
by 10.9%, from 261 million to 290 million acres!!
In the W e s t, the growth in the number of farms and
the number of owners is understandable: the country is
being settled, and there is a growing number of h o m e-
s t e a d s (see Statistical Abstract, p. 28 and the above
quotation from p. 1 0 4, p. 3 of these extracts).*
And the S o u t h << Share tenants (m o s t l y Negroes)
there mainly (1) account for the growth in the number of
farms. This means greater exploitation of the Negroes.
Then (2), there is a growing number of o w n e r s. Why??
Apparently it is due to the parcellisation of the p l a n t a-
t i o n s. P. 265 (Table 8) shows that the acreage in
the 1,000-and->acre farms in the United States fell by
30,702,109 acres (—15.5%), including &2,321,975 in the
North, and—1,206,872 in the West. Nearly the whole falls
to 
the 
S o u t h—3 1, 8 1 7 ,  1  
(—27.3%). 
And 
this
same South accounts, out of the total increase in the number
* See p. 451.—Ed.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
of farms (&624,130), for &477,156*) (i.e., the bulk, about
w), with a growing number of small farms:
under 20 acres & 115,192
20-49
”
& 191,793
50-99
”
& 111,690
Σ = 418,675
The essence is the disintegration of the slave-holding
plantations!!
The S o u t h (number of farms)
White farmers
coloured
1910
2,207,406
890,141
1900
1,879,721
740,670
with the Whites having more owners than tenants. and
the coloured v i c e v e r s a.
*) 1910: 3,097,547
1900: 2,620,391
&477,156

V. I. LENIN

(My abbre-
(p. 309, t. 18)
(p. 257, t. 1)
viation)
Number of farms
Number of farms
Idem (’000)
with horses
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Total . . . .
6,361,502
5,737,372
6,361
5,738
4,692,814
4,530,628
Under 20 acres
839,166&
673,870


408,60&
373,269
 20-49 . . . .
1,414,376&1,257,496
1,415
1,258
811,538—
834,241
 50-99 . . . .
1,438,069& 1,366,038
1,438
1,366
1,116,415— 1,123,750
100-174
. . .
1,516,286& 1,422,262
1,516
1,422
1,302,086& 1,260,090
175- 499 . . .
978,175&
868,020


890,451&
798,760
500-999 . . .
125,295&
102,526


116,556&
96,087
1,000 and over
50,135&
47,160


47,167&
44,431
(p. 257, t. 1)
Increase in num-
(p. 257, t. 1)
ber of farms
All land in farms
(1900-1910)
(acres)
increase
%
1910
1900
increase
%
Total . . . .
624,130
10.9
878,798,325
838,591,774
40,206,551
4.8
Under 20 acres
165,296
24.5
8,793,820
7,180,839
1,612,981
22.5
 20-49 . . . .
156,880
12.5
45,378,449
41,536,128
3,842,321
9.3
 50-99 . . . .
72,031
5.3
103,120,868
98,591,699
4,529,169
4.6
100-174
. . .
94,024
6.6
205,480,585
192,680,321
12,800,264
6.6
175- 499 . . .
110,155
12.7
265,289,069
232,954,515
32,334,554
13.9
500-999 . . .
22,769
22.2
83,653,487
67,864,116
15,789,371
23.3
1,000 and over
2,975
6.3
167,082,047
197,784,156 —30,702,109 —15.5
*) On the question of horse ownership, it should be noted
not make up for the decrease in farms with horses. This
The South showed the greatest growth—1900 : 1,155,000; 1910 :
growth in the number of farms reporting mules fails to make

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(My abbre-
(p. 257, t. 2)
viation) *)
% of total
Improved
% of im-
% of farms
Number
All land
land in
proved land
Idem (’000)
with horses
of farms
in farms
farms
in farms
1910
1900
1 9 1 0 1 9 0 0
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
4,693
4,531
73.8
79.0


54.4
49.4


48.9
52.4
13.2& 11.7
1.0&
0.9
1.7&
1.6
90.9
89.7


57.4
66.3
22.2& 21.9
5.2&
5.0
7.6—
8.0
80.6
79.4
1,116
1,124
77.6
82.2
22.6— 23.8
11.7— 11.8
14.9— 16.2
69.0
68.3
1,302
1,260
86.5
88.6
23.8— 24.8
23.4& 23.0
26.9— 28.6
62.7
61.4


91.0
92.0
15.4& 15.1
30.2& 27.8
33.8& 32.7
61.0
58.2


93.2
93.7
2.0&
1.8
9.5&
8.1
8.5&
7.1
48.8
43.4


94.1
94.2
0.8=
0.8
19.0— 23.6
6.5&
5.9
18.7
12.3
(ibidem)
% increase
Increase or
decrease of
share
Improved land in farms
(acres)
Num-
Im-
Im-
Num-
ber of proved proved
ber of
1910
1900
increase
%
f a r m s
l a n d
land
farms
478,451,750
414,498,487
63,953,263
15.4
7,991,543
6,440,447
1,551,096
24.1
24.5
24.1—
&
&
36,596,032
33,000,734
3,595,298
10.9
12.5
10.9—
—
—
71,155,246
67,344,759
3,810,487
5.7
5.3
5.7&
—
—
128,853,538
118,390,708
10,462,830
8.8
6.6
8.8&
—
—
61,775,502
135,530,043
26,245,459
19.4
12.7
19.4&
&
&
40,817,118
29,474,642
11,342,476
38.5
22.2
38.5&
&
&
&
31,262,771
24,317,154
6,945,617
28.6
6.3
28.6&
&
&
&
that the growth in the number of farms reporting mules does
growth=1900 : 1,480,652 (=25.8%); 1910 : 1,869,005 (=29.4%).
1,478,000, i.e., 1900—44.1%; 1910—47.7%. There, too, the
up for the increase in the number of horseless farms.

V. I. LENIN

The authors give no valid reasons for their grouping.
“Government land has for the most part been sold
approximately that amount” (p. 257).
“As judged by improved acreage, which is probably
N.B.
less than 20 acres) are becoming of relatively less impor-
This is the normal result of the fact that the very large
the country, where agriculture is developing most rapidly”
a relatively greater growth of the share of the big farms
The North
The
Per cent of total
% of
Per cent
improved
Number
All land
Improved
land
Number
of farms
in farms
land
in farms
of farms
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Σ
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
70.1
68.3
100.0
100.0
 < 20
9.5&
8.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
86.1
86.3
16.2
14.7
20- 49
13.9— 16.0
3.3
4.2
3.6
4.7
76.2
76.2
30.9
29.2
50- 99
24.2— 26.3
12.5
14.6
13.5
16.0
75.3
74.6
22.4
22.3
100- 174
29.5& 29.0
28.1 —29.7
29.3 —31.6
73.2
72.6
18.1 —19.8
175- 499
20.2& 18.0
38.1
36.0
39.8
37.3
73.1
70.5
10.4
11.6
500- 999
2.2&
1.6
10.3
7.9
9.0
6.6
60.8
56.9
1.3
1.6
1,000 & >
0.5&
0.4
6.9
6.9
4.1
3.1
41.1
30.5
0.7
0.9
(ctd)
Increase from 1900 to 1910: (absolute
The West
The North
The
% of
Improved
improved
Number
All land
land
Number
land in
of farms
in farms
in farms
of farms
farms
1910
1900
abso-
abso-
abso-
abso-
lute
%
lute
%
lute
%
lute
%
Σ
34.2
29.0
16.5
0.6
30,725
8.0
28,573
10.9
477.2
18.2
< 20
87.3
85.0
25.1
10.0

4.8

4.5
115.2
29.9
20- 49
73.9
71.4
—57.9 —12.6 —2,295 —14.2 —1,743 —14.2
191.8
25.1
50- 99
62.2
57.4
55.2
—7.3 —4,072
—7.3 —2,708 —6.5
111.7
19.2
100- 174
37.1
38.5
18.1
&2.2
2,503
2.2
2,435
2.9
42.7
8.2
175- 499
43.4
46.7
65.9
12.7
19,720
14.3
17,966
18.5
18.6
6.1
500- 999
46.6
44.1
18.5
40.4
12,430
40.9
8,756
50.6
—0.8 —2.0
1,000 & >
22.9
17.2
2.1
16.4
2,322
8.8
3,773
47.0
—2.0 —8.8

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
N.B. only:
or otherwise disposed of in quarter sections of 160 acres or
the best standard, the smaller farms (excepting those of
tance and the large farms of relatively greater importance.
farms are found for the most part in the newer sections of
(p. 258). This last explanation is wrong, for we find
in such old divisions as New England and Middle Atlantic.
South
The West
of total
% of
Per cent of total
% of
improved
improved
All land
Improved
land in
Number
All land
land in
in farms
land
 farms
of farms
in farms
farms
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
42.5
34.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.6
1.2
3.5
3.2
93.3
91.9
16.7
15.5
0.5
0.4
1.2
1.0
8.4
6.7
16.4
15.8
83.1
82.0
15.3
14.0
1.6
1.2
3.6
2.9
13.6
11.2
20.0
19.4
62.7
60.2
11.8
11.7
2.9
2.2
5.3
4.4
20.8& 18.9
25.3& 25.2
51.6
46.4
27.5— 28.6
14.0& 11.3
15.2& 15.0
24.0
22.2
24.4
24.9
43.2
39.1
19.5
19.4
20.2
15.6
25.7
25.2
7.6
7.5
5.5
6.1
30.9
28.1
5.3
6.1
12.4
11.0
16.9
16.7
23.9
32.2
4.8
5.4
8.5
5.9
3.9
4.8
48.3
58.4
32.3
34.8
figures = 1,000 farms or acres)
South
The West
Improved
Improved
All land
land
Number
All land
land
in farms
in farms
of farms
in farms
in farms
abso-
abso-
abso-
abso-
abso-
lute
%
lute
%
lute
%
lute
%
lute
%
—7,583
—2.1
24,583
19.5
130.4
53.7
17,065
18.2
10,797
39.8
1,301
29.5
1,278
31.5
24.9
66.5

58.8

63.3
5,406
22.2
4,772
23.9
23.0
67.5

66.8

72.6
7,497
18.5
5,731
23.5
15.5
54.8
1,104
52.5

65.2
5,351
7.8
6,345
20.0
33.2
47.8
4,945
46.8
1,683
41.4
4,796
6.0
5,369
17.1
25.7
54.6
7,818
53.5
2,911
42.6
—118
—0.4

9.3
5.1
34.5
3,478
33.8
1,874
41.3
—31,817
—27.3

5.5
2.9
25.3
—1,207
—2.2
2,797
29.6
N.B.
N.B.

V. I. LENIN

Three main groups clearly stand out (see & and — for
the United States): small farms (under 49 acres), medium
(50-174) and large (175 and >). (These limits are also in-
dicated by the “official” allotment [“homestead”] = 160 acres).
Taking these three groups, we obtain the following basic
%% results:
% of total
Increase (or —)
1900-10
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
% of
Number
Im-
Number
Im-
% of
im-
of
proved
of
proved
farms
proved
farms
land
farms
land
land
The
small
35.4
9.3
33.6
9.6
&
—
United
medium
46.4
41.8
48.6
44.8
—
—
States
(50-174)
large
18.2
48.8
17.7
45.7
&
&
small
23.4
4.4
24.7
5.5
—
—
The North
medium
53.7
42.8
55.3
47.6
—
—
large
22.9
52.9
20.0
47.0
&
&
small
47.1
19.9
43.9
19.0
&
&
The South
medium
40.5
45.3
42.1
44.6
—
&
large
12.4
34.7
14.1
36.4
—
—
small
32.0
4.8
29.5
3.9
&
&
The West
medium
39.3
20.5
40.3
19.4
—
—
large
28.7
74.9
30.3
76.7
—
—
% of total
1900-10
1910
1900
Increase (&)
 or decrease (—)
Number
Im-
Number
Im-
% of
of
proved
of
proved
% of
im-
farms
land
farms
land
farms
proved
land
The
small
58.0
24.2
57.4
25.8
&
—
United
medium
23.8
26.9
24.8
28.6
—
—
States
(50-174)
large
18.2
48.8
17.7
45.7
&
&
small
47.6
17.9
51.0
21.5
—
—
The North
medium
29.5
29.3
29.0
31.6
&
—
large
22.9
52.9
20.0
47.0
&
&
small
69.5
39.9
66.2
38.4
&
&
The South
medium
18.1
25.3
19.8
25.2
—
&
large
12.4
34.7
14.1
36.4
—
—
small
43.8
10.1
41.2
8.3
&
&
The West
medium
27.5
15.2
28.6
15.0
—
&
large
28.7
74.9
30.3
76.7
—
—

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY


⋆


The distinctive features of the three sections stand out
clearly:
The North: 1) The highest development of capitalism.
2) Stagnation in the number of farms. 3) Reduction in
the number and share of medium farms. 4) Growth
in the number and share of large (and very small,
but to a less degree). 5) Weak latifundia (> 1,000: 0.5%
of the farms and 6.9% of the land).
The South: 1) The lowest development of capitalism. 2) The
greatest development of share-tenancy (49.6% are
tenant farms). 3) Vast latifundia (> 1,000 acres: 0.7 % of
the farms and 23.9% of the land; in the North 0.5%
of the farms and 6.9% of the land). 4) Disintegration
of these latifundia of the former slave-owners (1900-
10:—32 million acres—27.3%). 5) The highest % of
small farms (43-47%). Summary: from slave-owning
latifundia to small commercial agriculture.
T h e W e s t: 1) Tremendous increase in the number of
farms: &53.7%!! Homesteads and small commercial
agriculture!! 2) Vast % of land in large farms (76-75%).
3) Very large latifundia (> 1 ,000: 3.9% of the farms
and 48.3% of the land). 4) The lowest % of tenant-
farmers and a r e d u c t i o n of it.
% of improved land in the < 20 acre
farms = 73-96% by divisions, and in the
> 1,000 acre farms 6.2- 43.4% by divi-
sions.
The contrast between these two sets of
percentages is the natural result of the fact
that small farms throughout the country
usually specialise in cropping, whereas
large farms, which in some sections also
specialise mainly in cropping, in other
sections almost exclusively go in for stock
raising (p. 264).
N.B.
(on the
question
of “acreage
statistics”)

V. I. LENIN

In the South there is a “process of breaking up great
plantations into small farms, chiefly operated by tenants”
(p. 264).
The great development of small fruit and other farms
on the Pacific coast, due, in part at least, to irrigation
projects organised in recent years, is reflected in the increase
in small farms of less than 50 acres in the Pacific division
(p. 264).*
Concerning the commercial character of stock raising,
it is interesting to note the % of farms selling livestock,
and the % of stock sold and slaughtered
(% of all farms
selling stock)
Ratio (%) between
number or domestic
animals sold or
slaughtered and
number on hand:
($ mill.)
The United
 States . . . .
1,833
100.0
32.0%
23.0%
28.9%
40.7%
100.9%
90.9%
The North . . .
1,258
68.6%
42.4%
34.5%
44.9%
42.9%
124.3%
97.5%
The South . . .

22.6%
23.3%
13.3%
15.9%
40.7%
68.2%
77.6%
The West . . .

8.8%
23.9%
13.5%
13.2%
33.4%
61.8%
87.9%
New England. .
30.4
1.7%
34.7%
34.6%
16.4%
43.6
320.8
126.8
Middle Atlantic
89.6
4.9%
36.2
48.6
23.0
28.6
241.2
123.5
* See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 51.—Ed.
Value of all
domestic
animals sold
or slaugh-
tered
on farms
in 1909
Cattle
(exclud-
ing calves)
Calves
Swine
Cattle
(excluding
calves)
Calves
Swine

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(p. 349, t. 14) (My abbreviation of table)
Number of farms reporting
Per cent of farms
Average number
reporting
per farm reporting
cattle
dairy cows
cattle
dairy
cattle
dairy
cows
cows
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900
The United States
5,284,916 4,730,480 5,140,869 4,513,895 83.1 82.4 80.8 78.7 11.7 14.3
4.0
3.8
&0.2
The North . . .
2,582,462 2,568,255 2,546,115 2,503,655 89.3 89.4 88.1 87.1 12.8 14.4
5.3
4.8
&0.5
The South . . .
2,426,302
1,972,548
2,334,605 1,835,841 78.3 75.3 75.4 70.1
8.0
11.3
2.4
2.3
&0.1
The West
. . .
276,152
189,677
260,149
174,399 74.0 78.1 69.7
71.8 33.6 44.6
5.2
5.0
&0.2
(p. 367, t. 6)
Horses
Mules
(Horses)
(Mules)
(Horses)
(Mules)
The United States
4,692,814 4,530,628 1,869,005 1,480,652 73.8 79.0 29.4 25.8
4.2
4.0
2.3
2.2
The North . . .
2,600,709 2,620,082
359,024
306,573 90.0 91.2 12.4 10.7
4.9
4.4
2.9
2.6
The South . . .
1,771,659
1,693,878
1,478,382 1,154,810 57.2 64.6 47.7 44.1
2.6
2.7
2.1
2.0
The West
. . .
320,446
216,668
31,599
19,269 85.8 89.2
8.5
7.9
7.6
10.5
4.5
6.3
(p. 387, t. 36)
Swine (all swine)
(all swine)
(all swine)
1910
1900
The United States
4,351,751
4,335,363
68.4
75.6
13.4
14.6
The North . . .
1,971,059
2,193,438
68.2
76.3
19.2
19.5
The South . . .
2,230,841
2,023,508
72.0
77.2
8.3
9.2
The West
. . .
149,851
118,417
40.1
48.7
12.2
12.3

V. I. LENIN

These data show the North concentrating livestock ownership against the South and the
West. Data on average per farm: dairy cows: North—4.8 and 5.3; horses—4.4 and 4.9;
mules: 2.6 and .9; swine—19.5 and 19. (the smallest reduction).
The figures for the divisions show that this applies
wholly only to East North Central and West North
Central. In New England, the average number of
cows d e c l i n e d, but that of horses remained t h e
s a m e in New England and Middle Atlantic.
(p. 309, t. 18)
(My
calculation)
Farms reporting dairy cows
%
(ibid. ’000)
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
See p.™*
% of
Farms
farms
reporting
reporting
The United
horses
horses
 States
5,140,869
4,513,895
5,141 & 4,514
80.8
78.7 &2.1
 < 20
443,331
334,361
444 &

52.9
49.5 &3.4
&110,000
&36,000
—3.5
 20-49
1,006,877
829,033
1,007 &

71.2
65.9 &5.3
&178,000
—22,000
—8.9
 50-99
1,260,346
1,150,172
1,260 & 1,150
87.1
84.1 &3.0
&110,000
— 8,000
—4.6
100-174
1,361,251 1,264,680
1,361 & 1,265
89.8
88.9 &0.9
& 96,000
&42,000
—2.1
175-499
913,991
803,667
914 &

93.5
92.6 &0.9
&110,000
&91,000
—1.0
500-999
112,167
92,670
112 &

89.6
90.3 —0.7
& 19,000
&21,000
—0.5
 1,000
 and >
42,906
39,312
43 &

86.0
82.9 &3.1
&
4,000
& 2,000
—0.1
* See pp. 454-55.—Ed.
||||
||||
]
!
PMQ
é
l
l
é
l

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
(p. 271, t. 1) Number of farms
The North
The South
The West
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Σ
2,890,618&2,874,073
3,097,547&2,620,391
373,337&242,908
6,034,783
< 20
276,042&
250,904
500,614&
385,422
62,510& 37,544
20- 49
401,332—
459,264
955,907&
764,114
57,137&
34,118
50- 99
699,417—
754,621
694,737&
583,047
43,915& 28,370
100-174
852,051&
833,963
561,544&
518,836
102,691& 69,463
175-499
582,778&
516,910
322,612&
303,986
72,785&
47,124
500- 999
64,313&
45,795
41,183—
42,015
19,799&
14,716
1,000 & >
14,685&
12,616
20,950—
22,971
14,500&
11,573
Farms reporting domestic animals
The North
The South
The West
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Σ
2,769,135
2,766,215
2,923,891
2,503,219
341,757
228,983
6,034,783
< 20
226,816
216,345
405,764
327,690
52,386
32,200
684,966
20- 49
374,099
431,353
900,990
728,509
53,112
31,941
1,328,201
-99
679,498
729,586
681,654
569,986
41,595
27,043
1,402,747
-174
833,045
819,122
554,235
511,269
91,144
65,585
1,478,424
-499
577,839
511,980
319,794
301,383
69,720
46,273
967,353
-999
63,354
45,391
40,775
41,647
19,498
14,556
123,627
1,000 & >
14,484
12,438
20,679
22,735
14,302
11,385
49,465
Value of all domestic animals
The North
The South
The West
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
Σ
2,863.7
1,835.3
1,284.3
782.4
611.9
361.4
ΣΣ 4,760 mill.
< 20
49.5&
35.6
58.5&
33.3
41.9&
31.0
20- 49
138.6&
100.3
194.5&
91.2
27.9&
11.3
-99
441.1&
293.0
239.6&
115.1
33.3&
14.2
-174
881.9&
548.5
293.5&
155.3
94.6&
55.8
-499
1,059.5&
633.0
280.2&
157.3
127.7&
65.2
-999
190.0&
122.1
72.0&
46.8
77.1&
43.2
1,000 & >
103.2&
102.7
146.0—
183.4
209.2& 140.8
(My calculation
for the divisions)
(My calculation
for the divisions)

V. I. LENIN

Farms reporting horses
% of farms reporting
horses
The North
The South
The West
The North
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900 ±
 Σ
2,600,709— 2,620,082
1,771,659& 1,693,878
320,446&216,668
89.9
91.4— 1.5
 < 20
180,119&
176,851
183,375&
168,012
45,107& 28,406
65.2
70.5— 5.3
 20-49
330,346—
387,672
431,805&
416,991
49,387& 29,578
82.3
84.4— 2.1
 50-99
641,509—
696,599
435,226&
401,520
39,680& 25,631
91.7
92.3— 0.6
100-174
805,125&
797,766
411,207&
399,859
85,754& 62,465
94.6
95.6— 1.1
175-499
567,012&
504,209
256,142&
249,479
67,297& 45,072
97.3
97.5— 0.2
500-999
62,329&
44,810
35,055—
36,941
19,172& 14,336
96.9
98.0— 1.1
1,000 & >
14,269&
12,175
18,849—
21,076
14,049& 11,180
97.0
96.5& 0.5
Farms reporting dairy cows
% The North
 Σ
2,546,115& 2,503,655
2,334,605& 1,835,841
260,149&174,399
88.8
87.1& 1.7
 < 20
166,143&
151,359
245,526&
164,950
31,662& 18,052
60.2
60. 3—0.1
 20-49
324,302—
361,715
641,207&
443,786
41,368& 23,532
80.8
78.7&2.1
 50-99
635,791—
672,516
590,109&
455,892
34,446& 21,764
90.9
89.1& 1.8
100-174
780,434&
774,299
504,825&
440,942
65,992& 49,439
93.5
92.9&0.7
175-499
558,017&
490,228
298,761&
274,032
57,213& 39,407
95.7
94.8&0.9
500-999
58,100&
42,579
37,048—
37,437
17,019& 12,664
90.3
93.1— 2.8
1,000 & >
13,328&
10,959
17,129—
18,802
12,449&
9,551
90.8
86.9&3.9

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Number of mature horses
The North
The South
The West
1910
1900
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
Σ
11,316,712
9,826,344
4,073,946
3,888,382
2,039,760
1,791,240
< 20
280,688
242,330
136,011
20-49
719,887
654,711
142,956
50-99
1,914,522
823,210
151,830
100- 174
3,521,068
1,043,386
427,684
175-499
3,871,018
871,197
518,337
500- 999
689,898
185,274
263,827
1,000 & >
289,631
253,838
399,115
For 1900 there are data only on a l l horses (for 1910 these data are n o t available)
Number of dairy cows
The North
The South
The West
1910
1900
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
Σ
13,596,483&11,986,550
5,688,368&4,282,555
1,340,581&866,528
< 20
278,221—
289,135
376,500&
262,187
71,223& 49,274
20-49
824,089—
848,854
1,089,372&
716,853
128,297& 66,612
50-99
2,670,595& 2,453,724
1,254,360&
898,269
154,263& 82,035
100- 174
4,756,705& 4,147,973
1,418,157& 1,114,074
300,130& 280,275
175-499
4,469,057&
3,761,844
1,194,299&
950,115
362,757& 153,261
500- 999
477,560&
383, 1 7 1
221,737&
193,677
158,655& 111,629
1,000 & >
120,256&
101,849
133,943—
147,380
165,256& 123,442
Farms reporting mules
The North
The South
The West
1910
1900
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
Σ
359,024
306,573
1,478,382
1,154,810
31,599
19,269
< 20
5,693
6,743
102,402
77,900
1,442
1,333
20-49
26,405
28,900
435,559
311,829
2,277
1,236
50-99
66,539
63,078
370,582
276,723
2,628
1,290
100- 174
119,581
101,259
320,772
263,195
8,019
4,071
175-499
121,574
92,258
206,335
182,037
9,472
5,084
500- 999
14,906
10,795
28,584
27,739
3,796
2,799
1,000 & >
4,326
3,540
14,148
15,387
3,965
3,456

V. I. LENIN

(p. 270, t. 11) Average value per farm ($)
Implements
All farm
Land
Buildings
and
Livestock
property
machinery
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
Σ
9,507
5,030
6,618
3,260
1,564


1,029

< 20
2,849
1,875
1,334

1,213


20-49
3,464
2,118
1,961
1,212


The
50-99
5,772
3,455
3,602
2,128
1,279


North
100-174
9,713
5,416
6,696
3,538
1,622


1,077

175- 499
17,928
9,342 13,369
6,451 2,209
1,349


1,867
1,253
500-999
27,458 15,196 21,172 10,275 2,558
1,792


2,996
2,694
1,000 & > 52,989 28,805 40,631 17,481 4,068
2,528
1,198

7,072
8,153
Σ
2,897
1,629
1,913


< 20


20-49
1 , 2 1 7


The
50-99
2,237
1,171
1,390


South
100-174
3,692
1,818
2,415
1,099


175-499
6,742
3,414
4,608
2,138
1,023


500-999
14,430
6,908 10,423
4,431
1,780
1,056


1,775
1,136
1,000 & > 47,348 26,807 36,390 15,660 2,897
1,930
1,065
1,211
6,996
8,006
Σ
12.155
7,059
9,162
4,639
1,009


1,673
1,512
< 20
5,025
2,953
3,342
1,523


20-49
7,359
3,578
5,727
2,544


The
50-99
9,404
4,358
7,386
3,101


West
100-174
7,205
3,763
5,375
2,343


175-499
14,111
7,667 10,844
5,184
1,082


1,788
1,412
500-999
27,662 14,601 21,206 10,006
1,749
1,176


3,986
2,963
1,000 & > 74,186 44,972 55,110 29,443 3,206
2,402
1,384
915 14,486 12,212
Σ
6,444
3,563
4,476
2,276


< 20
1,812
1,139


The
20-49
2,103
1,280
1,284


United
50-99
4,175
2,489
2,649
1,536


States 100-174
7,313 4,022
5,021
2,590
1,182


175-499
13,955
7,175 10,291
4,872
1,734
1,059


1,540
1,012
500-999
23,208 11,714 17,644
7,842
2,174
1,402


2,751
2,094
1,000 & > 56,757 31,799 43,047 19,530 3,330
2,206
1,196

9,185
9,077

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Average value per acre ($)
Implements
All farm
Land
Buildings
and
Livestock
property
machinery
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
1910
1900
66.46
37.77
46.26
24.48
10.93
6.98
2.07
1.35
7.20
4.96
308.84
193.56
144.55
94.82
131.44
75.19
10.59
7.35
22.26
16.19
100.67
60.41
56.98
34.57
28.83
16.52
4.01
2.62
10.85
6.69
77.96
46.66
48.63
28.74
17.27
10.43
3.01
1.97
9.01
5.51
71.26
39.75
49.13
25.96
11.90
7.29
2.33
1.49
7.90
5.00
66.96
35.00
49.40
24.17
8.16
5.05
1.79
1.08
6.90
4.69
41.24
22.90
31.79
15.49
3.84
2.70
1.10
0.65
4.50
4.06
27.14
13.80
20.82
8.37
2.08
1.21
0.61
0.31
3.62
3.90
25.31
11.79
16.72
7.08
4.03
1.98
0.83
0.50
3.74
2.24
73.36
42.16
39.37
20.91
20.77
11.51
2.35
1.72
10.88
8.02
39.18
21.12
23.58
12.33
7.39
3.91
1.35
0.91
6.81
3.97
32.30
16.80
20.07
9.94
5.88
3.13
1.17
0.74
5.18
2.99
28.08
13.78
18.37
8.32
4.63
2.49
0.97
0.59
4.12
2.37
25.66
12.92
17.46
8.09
3.88
2.30
0.83
0.50
3.38
2.03
21.96
10.68
15.86
6.85
2.71
1.63
0.69
0.44
2.70
1.76
11.69
5.28
8.99
3.08
0.72
0.38
0.26
0.24
1.73
1.58
40.99
18.28
30.86
12.01
3.40
1.79
1.04
0.56
5.63
3.92
595.60
333.61
395.87
172.03
102.66
57.31
12.85
8.89
84.12
95.38
230.42
111.59
179.32
79.35
28.55
17.46
6.33
3.82
16.22
10.96
28.79
58.80
101.15
41.85
13.24
7.69
3.60
2.18
10.81
7.07
47.67
24.71
35.56
15.39
4.40
2.92
1.46
1.00
6.24
5.41
45.77
24.71
35.17
16.71
3.51
2.54
1.29
0.91
5.80
4.55
39.79
20.89
30.50
14.81
2.52
1.68
1.04
0.65
5.73
4.24
20.08
9.50
14.92
6.22
0.87
0.51
0.37
0.19
3.92
2.58
46.64
24.37
32.40
15.57
7.20
4.24
1.44
0.89
5.60
3.67
172.89
106.90
91.22
52.92
57.73
35.19
5.37
3.96
18.57
14.83
65.55
38.74
40.00
22.72
14.77
9.16
2.36
1.65
8.42
5.21
58.22
34.62
36.94
21.28
11.83
7.37
2.17
1.47
7.28
4.51
53.97
29.69
37.05
19.11
8.72
5.35
1.78
1.14
6.42
4.09
51.45
26.74
37.95
18.15
6.39
3.95
1.44
0.87
5.68
3.76
34.76
17.70
26.43
11.85
3.26
2.12
0.96
0.57
4.12
3.16
17.03
7.58
12.92
4.66
1.00
0.53
0.36
0.24
2.76
2.16

V. I. LENIN

Note:
“...In the Mountain and Pacific divisions farms
of 100 to 174 acres show a lower average value
of buildings per farm than those of 50 to 99 acres.
This condition is probably due to the fact that
the farms of 100 to 174 acres in these divisions
consist in considerable part of homesteads recent-
ly taken up by settlers who have not had time,
or perhaps have not accumulated means, to con-
struct expensive buildings” (p. 271).
“...The high averages (value of all farm pro-
perty—for small farms) in these two divisions
[Mountain and Pacific] are partly due to the
presence of numerous small and highly cultivated
fruit and vegetable farms, many of which are
irrigated” (p. 272)
On the question of c r o p y i e l d s:
Average yield per acre (bushels)
(p. 486, t. 14) (p. 485)
Dairy
cows
(p. 584,
(p. 593)
(p. 603)
Milk produced
(1909)
t. 15)
(gallons)
ave-
average per
rage
C o r n (1)
W h e at (2)
O a ts (3)
c ow
per
farm
1909
1899
1909
1899
1909
1899
1909
1899
United States . . .
25.9
28.1
15.4
12.5
28.6
31.9


3.8
New England . . .
45.2
39.4
23.5
18.0
32.9
35.9


5.8
Middle Atlantic . .
32.2
34.0
18.6
14.9
25.5
30.9


6.1
East North Central
38.6
38.3
17.2
12.9
33.3
37.4


4.0
West ” ”
27.7
31.4
14.8
12.2
27.5
32.0


4.9
South Atlantic . . .
15.8
14.1
11.9
9.5
15.5
11.7


2.1
East South Central
18.6
18.4
11.7
9.0
13.4
11.1


1.9
West ” ”
15.7
21.9
11.0
11.9
21.4
25.8


3.1
Mountain . . . . .
15.8
16.5
23.1
19.2
34.9
30.4


4.7
Pacific . . . . . .
24.0
25.2
17.7
15.6
35.3
31.4


5.1
(1) c o r n. 1909: 20.6% of all improved land.
(2) 9.3%
”
”
”
”
”
”
(3) 7.3%
”
”
”
”
”
”
Home-
steds
in
the
West
Small
farms
in
the
West...

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
In the North, we must c o n s i d e r s e p a r a t e l y (α) New England&Middle Atlantic and
(β) E a s t and W e s t North Centrals
α—31-41% (value of all crops)=hay
M o s t l y sown grasses (from hay
α—crops are mostly higher
and forage
and forage)
β—14-16%
The p a r t of wild, meadow, etc.
β—crops are mostly lower
grasses is c o n s i d e r a b l e
α—17-21% (idem) vegetables
α labour and fertilisers (per acre) are high
β—4-7%
β labour and fertilisers (per acre) are low
α—Almost n o homesteads
High population density.
Buy feed for livestock.
β—Homesteads e x i s t
Low population density.
Sell feed for livestock.
Summing up the o r i g i n a l (not the final!!) entries for homesteads over the 10 years (1900-10),
(Statistical Abstract, p. 28), we obtain:
Pacific
— 13. 4
The West . . . . 55.3 mill. acres
Mountain— 41. 9
Homesteads
The North . . . 55. 2
”
”
(incl. W e s t N o r t h C e n t r a l 54.3)
The South . . . 20. 0
”
”
(incl. West South Central 17.3)
Σ = 130.5
Thus, the W e s t is a s o l i d homestead area.
In the N o r t h— o n e division (West North Central) is a homestead area.
In the S o u t h—also o n e (West South Central) is a homestead area.

V. I. LENIN

All farms = 1,182,099 . . . 89,923,619 acre
11 southern states: Alabama, Arkansas,
35
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
plantations
N o r t h & S o u t h Carolina, Tennessee,
or farms = 437,978 . . . 28,296,815
”
counties
Texas & Virginia.
Chapter XII. P l a n t a t i o n s i n t h e S o u t h
Tenant plantations of ((1910))
50 ten-
All tenant
All
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 to 49
ants
Average acre-
Average im-
plantations
classes
tenants
tenants
tenants
and over
age per farm
proved acres
Cen-
per farm
sus
The
The
The
The
Year: South North South North
Plantations . . . . . . .
39,073
26,562
9,160
2,939

1910
114. 4
143.0
48.6 100.3
Landlord farms
. . . . .
39,073
26,562
9,160
2,939

1910
138.2
133.2
48.1
90.9
Tenant farms . . . . . .
398,905
168,089
118,862
82,404
29,550
1890
139.7
123.7
58.8
87.8
Average acreage . . . . .
724.2
495.0
953.2
1,688.0
3,535.3 1880
153.4
114. 9
56.2
76.6
 ” improved acreage . .
405.3
273.8
528.2
974.9
2,084.1
1870
214.2
117. 0
69.2
69.2
Aver-
landlord
all land
330.9
227.3
438.4
785.5
1,374.6 1860
335.4
126.4
101.3
68.3
age
farms
improved
acreage
land
86.6
65.2
106.8
187.9
293.4 1850
332.1
127.1
101.1
65.4
Aver-
tenant
all land
38.5
42.3
39.7
32.2
30.1
age
farms
improved
acreage
land
31.2
33.0
32.5
28.1
25.0
Acreage of
all land . . . .
28,296,815
13,147,956
8,731,179
4,961,152
1,456,528
landlord farms . .
12,929,417
6,038,777
4,015,807
2,308,518
566,315
tenant farms
. .
15,367,398
7,109,179
4,715,372
2,652,634
890,213
% in tenant farms
54.3
54.1
54.0
53.5
61.1
(
)
!
!
!
!

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
“As a matter of fact ... a large proportion of the tenants
in the South actually occupied a very different economic
position from that usually occupied by tenants in other
parts of the country. The plantation as a unit for general
purposes of administration has not disappeared, and in
many cases the tenants on plantations are subjected to
quite as complete supervision by the owner, general lessee,
or manager, as that to which the hired labourers are subject-
ed on large farms in the North and West” (p. 877).
Chapter XI. I r r i g a t i o n.
Arid region: 1,440,822 farms. 1,1 6 1,385,600 acres,
388.6 million acres of land in farms, 173.4 million acres
of improved land. 307.9 millions of dollars = cost of
irrigation enterprises ($15.92 per acre).
158,713 farms irrigated (13.7 millions of acres irrigated).
Average yield per acre (1909)
on irrigated
on unirrigat-
 ± %
land
ed land
corn
(bushels) . . 23.7
25.9
— 8.5
oats
. . . 36.8
28.5
&29.1
wheat . . . 25.6
15.3
& 67.3%
barley . . . 29.1
22.3
&30.5%
alfalfa . . .
2.94 tons
2.14
& 37.4%
Taking into account the fact that Mr. Himmer (Zavety,
1913, No. 6) makes a downright lying assertion about the 1910
Census, to the effect that in the United States of America
“there are no areas where colonisation is no longer contin-
uing, or where large-scale capitalist agriculture is not
disintegrating and is not being replaced by family-labour
farms” (p. 60)*—let us dwell on the
 divisions: New England
and Middle Atlantic. Colonisation = 0. (No homesteads).
* See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 37-38—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

The capitalist character of agriculture:
1909
1899
%
E x p e n d i t u r e f o r
New England
.
4.76
2.55
&86%
l a b o u r (per improved
Middle Atlantic
2.66
1.64
&62%
acre)
Pacific
. . . .
3.47
1.92
&80%
Mountain . . .
2.95
2.42
&22%
Average for the
1.36
0.86
&58%
United States
Thus, the capitalist character is most pronounced and
is developing most strongly!!!
Himmer was “confused” over the fact that not only was
the average farm acreage in these divisions declining in
general (U.S.A. 146.2—138.1; New England 107.1—104.4;
Middle Atlantic 92.4—92.2), but that there was also a decrease
in the quantity of improved land (U.S.A.&72.2&75.2;
New England 42.4—38.4; Middle Atlantic 63.4—62.6)!!!
Besides, in terms of improved acreage, New England
farms are t h e s m a l l e s t!!
The silly ass has failed to see the difference between small
acreages and the capitalist character of agriculture.
1909
1899
Expenditure for ferti-
New England
1.30
0.53 &148%
lisers (per improved
Middle Atlantic
0.62
0.37 & 78%
acre)
South Atlantic
1.23
0.49 &151%
Average for the
 United States
0.24
0.13
& 58%
Let us note that most fertiliser is used on land under
c o t t o n (the South!) (see 1900 Statistics). Cotton: 18.7%
of the farms; 22.5% of the expenditure for fertilisers.
cf. p. 1 of extracts (1910) (p. 560)*
% of farms hiring labour
N.B.
New England . . .
66.0%
N.B.
Middle Atlantic . .
65.8%
East North Central
52.7
West
”
”
51.0
Mountain . . . .
46.8%
Pacific
. . . . .
58.0%
* See p. 444.—Ed.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Increase (or decrease) 1900-10
Percentage
of in-
crease
(1899- 1909)
in the
New
Number
All land
value of
England
of
%
in farms
farms
(acres)
Improved land in
all
imple-
farms (acres)
farm
ments
prop-
and
Amount
%
Amount
%
erty machin-
ery
Total
—3,086
—1.6
—834,068
—4.1
—879,499 —10.8
35.6
39.0
< 20
6,286
22.4
41,273
14.9
30,984
15.5
60.9
48.9
20-49

0.1
— 33,243
—2.9
—28,500
—4.7
31.4
30.3
50-99
—3,457
—7.0
—250,313
—7.2
—142,270
—9.1
27.5
31.2
100-174
—4,020
—8.4 —466,663
—7.7
—309,499 —12.3
30.3
38.5
175-499
—1,999
—6.7
—459,948
—6.1
—421,081 —15.3
33.0
44.6
500-999

0.3
36,311
2.8
—46,002 —12.8
53.7
53.7
1,000 and >

16.3
298,515
36.2
36,889
36.8
102.7
60.5
Middle
Atlantic:
Total
—17,239
—3.5 —1,669,034
—3.7 —1,465,317
—4.8
28.1
44.1
< 20
5,754
7.7
29,704
4.1
15,550
2.5
45.8
42.9
20-49
—5,955
—7.1
—225,471
—8.0
—210,859
—9.5
28.3
37.0
50-99
—11,639
—8.2
—772,300
—7.6
—623,012
—8.1
23.8
39.9
100-174
—5,745
—4.4
—746,852
—4.5
—605,047
—5.1
24.9
43.8
175-499

1.0
169,095
1.4
—59,57
—0.8
29.4
54.7
500-999
—59
—3.1
—27,161
—2.3
17,990
3.8
31.5
50.8
1,000 and >
—90 —16.1
—96,049
—8.0
—372
—0.2
74.4
65.2
These figures are a clear indication that the small farms
are being displaced by the large.
In both divisions, a l l the medium groups (20- 499)
have been l o s i n g (%).
The gains were registered by (1) the smallest (< 20)
(2) the large (500-999 and
1,000 and >).

V. I. LENIN

In percentage and absolute terms (quantity of i m p r o v e d
land), the l a r g e farms gained more than the small!!
[The small farms (under 20 acres) here are very frequently
out-and-out capitalist farms] because they have the maxi-
mum % of land under vegetables and a minimum under
cereals.
The % increase in agricultural implements and machin-
ery (=constant capital in its most important form, which
is directly indicative of technical progress) is at a m a x i-
m u m in the l a r g e farms, at a minimum in the m e d i-
u m farms, with the large ones doing b e t t e r than the
smallest!!!
(p. 266, t. 9)
Percentage distribution of total value
 U n i t e d S t a t e s
All farm property
Implements and machinery
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
 Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
(α)
< 20
3.7 —
3.8
3.7 —
3.8
(β)
20- 49
7.3—
7.9
8.5—
9.1
(γ)
50- 99
14.6—
16.7
17.7 —
19.3
(δ)
100- 174
27.1 —
28.0
28.9—
29.3
(ε)
175-499
33.3&
30.5
30.2&
27.1
(ζ)
500-999
7.1 &
5.9
6.3&
15.1
(η) 1,000 and >
6.9—
7.3
4.7 —
6.2
N e w E n g l a n d :
 Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.0&
10.1
7.8&
7.3
13.3—
13.7
1 1.5—
1 2.2
20.0—
21.2
20.8 —
22.0
24.2—
25.1
27.9—
28.0
24.4—
24.8
27.3&
26.2
3.9&
3.4
3.3&
2.9
2.4&
1.6
1.5&
1.3
M i d d l e
 A t l a n t i c :
 Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.9&
7.8
6.5=
6.5
11.3=
11.3
10.6—
11.1
24.6—
25.5
27.2—
28.0
31.9—
32.7
34.5=
34.5
20.3&
20.1
19.4&
18.1
1.8=
1.8
1.3=
1.3
1.2&
0.8
0.6&
0.5

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
 U n i t e d S t a t e s
All farm property
Implements and
machinery
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
T h e N o r t h : Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.9—
3.3
3.1 —
3.5
small
5.1 —
6.7
6.5—
8.2
14.7—
18.0
18.2—
21.3
medium
30.1—
31.2
31.7 —
32.7
38.0&
33.4
32.9&
29.0
large
6.4&
4.8
5.5&
3.8
2.8&
2.5
2.1 &
1.6
T h e S o u t h : Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.7 &
4.4
4.6&
4.2
small
13.0&
12.0
13.7 &
12.3
17.3&
16.0
19.2&
16.7
medium
23.1 &
22.1
2.4&
22.4
24.2—
24.3
24.1 &
22.3
large
6.6—
6.8
6.4—
6.7
11.4—
14.4
7.6—
15.5
T h e W e s t : Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.9&
6.5
5.9&
5.6
small
9.3&
7.1
10.0&
7.9
9.1 &
7.2
10.0&
8.7
medium
16.3&
15.2
19.6—
20.0
22.6&
21.1
25.0—
25.1
large
12.1—
12.5
12.3—
12.7
23.7 —
30.4
17.3—
20.0
Conclusions:
(1) Two old divisions (New England & Middle Atlantic).
Maximum growth of the big farms. Erosion of the medi-
um. Lesser growth of the smallest.
(2) The North (capitalism). Growth of large farms at the
expense of the small.
(3) The South (transition from slavery to capitalism).
Growth of small farms at the expense of the large.
(N.B.: The role of the largest is a b o v e average.)
(4) The West (new lands. Maximum of homesteads). Growth
of small at the expense of the large. (N.B.: The role
of the largest and the large is above average.)
(5) Summary. ΣΣ: (The United States): Displacement of all
the small and all the medium ones. Displacement of the
l a t i f u n d i a (1,000 and >). Growth of big capitalist
farms (1 7 5 - 5 0 0; 5 0 0 - 1,0 0 0).

V. I. LENIN

T h e U n i t e d
It is interesting to compare the data on the %%
A) Quantity of improved
B)) (Value)
C))
l a n d
all farm
(Value)
Number of
%% of
property
land
farms
acreage
1910
1900
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
& 13.2
11.7
& smallest (< 20)
1.7
1.6
— 3.7
3.8
— 2.8
2.9
&22.2
21.9
— small and
7.6
8.0
—
7.3
7.9
— 6.4
7.2
— 22.6
23.8
— medium
14.9
16.2
— 14.6
16.7
— 13.4
16.1
— 23.8
24.8
—
26.9
28.6
— 27.1
28.0
— 26.7
28.2
& 15.4
15.1
& large and
33.8
32.7
& 33.3
30.5
& 35.4
32.2
& 2.0
1.8
& latifundia
8.5
7.1
& 7.1
5.9
& 7.8
6.2
= 0.8
0.8
& (latifundia)
6.5
5.9
— 6.9
7.3
& 7.6
7.1
(— 3.7
3.8
(—49.0
52.6
(&40.4
36.4
— 6.9
7.3
This is remarkable!
There is an increase in the value of land!! (both in the
large farms and the latifundia).
Only in two divisions is there no decline of the l a t i-
f u n d i a (1,000 and >), namely, the oldest and capitalist
divisions, New England and Middle Atlantic!! In these two
divisions, the role of the latifundia has i n c r e a s e d i n
a l l r e s p e c t s (including even livestock!!) (Middle Atlan-
tic=0.6—0.6 livestock, New England, 1.5—1.4 livestock).
The exception (N.B.) is the maximum destruction of lati-
fundia in W e s t S o u t h C e n t r a l = 21.3—41.9, and in
t h e W e s t = 33.6—38.5, i.e., just where the latifundia are
o u t s i z e d!!
A d d e d
All the added value to all farm property=&$20,551
m i l l i o n.
$ mill.
Of this smallest
&

small and
& 1,365
4,708 —
medium
&2,590
& 5,368
5,368 —
& 7,422
large and
& 1,707
10,475 —
latifundia
& 1,346
Σ=20,551
In these 10 years, the i n d u s t r i a l w o r k e r s (1900:
4.7 million, 1910—6.6 million) (&40.4%) increased their
wages by 1,419 million (&70.6%).
!
!
!
!
!
!

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
S t a t e s:
distribution of various elements in the farms
(Value)
(Value)
(Value)
implements
(Value)
all farm
A l l
buildings
and
livestock
property
l a n d
machinery
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
& 8.0
7.1
— 3.7
3.8
— 3.3
3.5
— 3.7
3.8
& 1.0
0.9
— 10.6
10.7
— 8.5
9.1
& 7.8
7.0
— 7.3
7.9
& 5.2
5.0
— 19.3
20.4
— 17.7
19.3
& 15.2
14.5
— 14.6
16.7
— 11.7
11.8
— 28.3
29.0
— 28.9
29.3
&26.8
25.6
—27.1
28.0
&23.4
23.0
& 26.8
25.9
& 30.2
27.1
& 30.6
28.5
&33.3
30.5
&30.2
27.8
& 4.3
4.0
& 6.3
5.1
=
7.0
7.0
& 7.1
5.9
& 9.5
8.1
— 2.6
2.9
— 4.7
6.2
— 9.3
13.9
— 6.9
7.3
— 19.0
23.6
livestock
livestock
26.3—25
± %
&1.3
—0.2
26.8—25.6
&0.8
&1.2
&1.2*
46.9—49.4
=
—2.5
—4.6
v a l u e :
% of farms
mill. farms
idem (1900)
58.0
3.7
(3. 3)
23.8
1. 5
(1. 4)
18.2
1.1
(1. 0)
100.0
6.3
(5.7)
* Lenin left out the next group of 175 to 499: &2.1.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

Some economic elements (resp. classes) in the U.S.A.,
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0 &
&%
Capitalists in in-
Number of enterprises
207.5
268. 5 &
61&29. 4%
 dustry:
(’000)
Urban population
 &34.8%
Number of wage workers
4,713
6,615&1,902 &40. 4%
(’000)
Agriculture:
Number of farms (’000)
5,731
6,361& 624 & 10.9%
Rural population
Number of hired labourers
82.3% : 70.6% = x : 40.4%
 &11.2%
(cf. p. 1 and over)*
x=47.1%
Production of all
4,439
4,513& 74
& 1.7%
 cereals (mill.
 bushels)
Industry:
Value of products
(number of enterprises (’000) and % of total)
p r o d u c t i o n :
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
&
&
%
(< $20,000) s m a l l


&36 &25%
66. 6%&67. 2%
Should be 1904
($20,000-$100,000)


& 9 &18. 7%
instead of 1900
 m e d i u m
22. 2%—21.3%
($100,000 and >) l a r g e


& 7 &29.1%
11. 2% &11.5%
Total


&52 &24. 2%
100%
100%
Agriculture:
Number of farms (’000) and % of total
(under 99 acres) s m a l l
 3,297
3,691
&394&11.5%
57. 4%&58. 0%
(100-174) m e d i u m
1,422
1,516
&94 & 6.6%
24. 8%—23. 8%
(175 and >) l a r g e
1,018
1,154
&136 &13.3%
17. 7% &18.2%
Total
5,737
6,361
&624 &10.9%
100%
100%
*
-
P
N
M
N
Q
PNMNQ
See pp. 482 83.—Ed.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
according to the 12th (1900) and 13th (1910) censuses
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0 &
&
%
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0
&
%
 Their capi-
8,975
18,428& 9,453& 105.3%
Value
11,406
20,672&9,266&81%*
 tal ($ mill.)
of prod-
ucts
($ mill.)
 Their wages 2,008
3,427& 1,419& 70.6%
 ($ mill.)
Value of
20,440
40,991&20,551&100.5%
their prop-
erty
($ mill.)
Their

652&
295& 82.3%
wages
($ mill.)
Their
1,483
2,665& 1,182& 79.8%
value
($ mill.)
1 9 0 0
1 9 1 0 &
&
%
Value of
products
($ mill.)

1,127&
200&
21.5%
6.3%
5.5%
2,129
2,544
415&
19.5%
14. 4%— 12.3%
11,737
17,000& 5,263& 44.8%
79. 3%&82.2%
14,793
20,671& 5,878& 39. 7%
100%
100%
Value of
their prop-
erty
($ mill.)
5,790
10,499& 4,709&
81.3%
28. 4% —25.6%
5,721
11,089& 5,368& 93.8%
28. 0% —27. 1%
8,929
19,403&10,474& 117.3
43. 7%**&47.3%
20,440
40,991&20,551&100.5%
100%
100%
* In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works this figure has
been corrected to 81.2% (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 94).—Ed.
** In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works this figure
has been corrected to 43.6% (Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 98).—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

Three types:
For a characteristic of the population
1) The North
2) The South
3) The West
Per cent distribution by class of
(Abstract of the
Census, p. 92)
United States
rural
53.7
55.8
27.8
72.6
urban
46.3
44.2
72.2
27.4
New England
rural
16.7
20.4
7.6
8.2
urban
83.3
79.6
92.4
91.8
Middle Atlantic
rural
29.0
33.7
16.1
18.8
urban
71.0
66.3
83.9
81.2
East North Central
rural
47.3
51.6
28.6
23.4
urban
52.7
48.4
71.4
76.6
West North Central
rural
66.7
68.4
60.8
32.3
urban
33.3
31.6
39.2
67.7
South Atlantic
rural
74.6
74.4
34.0
77.9
urban
25.4
25.6
66.0
22.1
East South Cen-
rural
81.3
82.2
33.3
80.8
 tral
urban
18.7
17.8
66.7
19.2
West South Cen-
rural
77.7
78.4
60.8
78.0
 tral
urban
22.3
21.6
39.2
22.0
Mountain
rural
64.0
64.0
60.3
28.0
urban
36.0
36.0
39.7
72.0
Pacific
rural
43.2
44.2
38.7
16.6
urban
56.8
55.8
61.3
83.4
*) Total of two vertical figures = 100.
total population
White native
White foreign-
born
Negro

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
within the U.S.A.
N.B.
N.B.
 (1910)
The Negroes are in flight f r o m
t h e S o u t h (m o s t l y t o t h e
c i t i e s). The North is giving up
its population to the W e s t. The
foreign-born avoid the S o u t h.
community:*)
[ibidem p. 175]
Gain or loss (1910) from
interstate migration
% of all population
% of population (1910)
14.5
10.7
72.6
12.3
14.7
—
—
27.7
1.0
66.2
5.5
27.9
—
226,219
& 20,310
25.0
2.2
69.7
4.9
25.1
— 1,120,678
&186,384
16.8
1.6
73.4
9.3
16.8
—1,496,074
& 119,649
13.9
2.1
65.4
20.2
13.9
& 472,566
&
40,497
2.4
33.7
92.6
4.7
2.5
—
507,454
—392,827
1.0
31.5
91.5
7.3
1.0
—
974,165
— 200,876
4.0
22.6
72.3
23.3
4.0
&1,434,780
&194,658
16.6
0.8
41.8
40.2
17.2
& 856,683
&
13,229
20.5
0.7
35.8
40.3
22.8
&1,560,561
&
18,976
Foreign-
born
Negro
Born in
division of
residence
born in
other divi-
sions
foreign-born
White
persons
Negro per-
sons

V. I. LENIN

Volume IV. Occupation Statistics
Table 15, p. 54
Number of persons 10 years of age and over
engaged in
Both sexes
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
1 8 9 0
1 8 8 0
Agricultural pursuits . . . . . . 1,567,925 10,381,765 9,148,448 7,713,875
Overstatement in the
 number of women (8)
Agricultural labourers . . . . . .
6,088,414
4,410,877
3,586,583
3,323,876
12,567,925
—468,100
Dairymen and dairywomen . . . .
35,014
10,875
17,895
8,948
12,099,825 10,381,765
Farmers, planters and overseers . .
5,981,522
5,674,875
5,281,557
4,229,051
116%
Gardeners, florists, nurserymen, etc.
143,462
61,788
72,601
56,032
&16%
Lumbermen and raftsmen. . . . .
127,154
72,020
65,866
30,651
Stock raisers, herders and drovers .
122,189
84,988
70,729
44,075
Woodchoppers . . . . . . . . .
27, 567
36,075
33,697
12,731
Turpentine farmers and labourers .
28,967
24,735
7,450
19,520
Other agricultural pursuits . . . .
13,636
5,532
1,061
Apiarists . . . . . . . . . . .
2,145
1,339
1,773
1,016
PMQ

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Agricultural labourers . . . . . .
6,088,414
4,410,877
6,088÷4,410=137%
Male . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,566,281
3,747,668
4,566,281÷3,747,668=121.8%
(8) Female . . . . . . . . . .
1,522,133
663,209
100—21.8 = 78.2
(p. 27)&(1910—1900)=129.5% (1900—1890:&23.3%, page 26).
(α) Female farm labourers working
 on the home farm . . . . . .
1,176,585
441,055
[&166.8%]
(β) Female farm labourers working
 o u t . . . . . . . . . . . .
337,522
220,048
[& 53.4%]
idem m a l e (α) (home farm)
—2,133,949
?
(p. 91)
(β) (working out)
—2,229,444
?
(Σ=4,433,393)
Total number of hired labourers in agriculture:
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0
Female (working out) . . . . . .
337,522
220,048
Male (
”
” ) . . . . . .
2,299,444
1,798,165
(roughly=78.2% of 1910 figure)
Σ=2,566,966*
2,018,213
see p. 2 over**
* The total is with Lenin’s correction, see p. 485.—Ed.
** See p. 485.—Ed.
é

V. I. LENIN

Industrial statistics show
wage
wages
workers
1899 . . . .
4.7
mill.
$2,008 mill.
1909 . . . .
6.6
”
$3,427
”
&40.6%
&70.6%
Consequently, the increase in the number of hired labour-
ers in a g r i c u l t u r e could be estimated:
Increase in
Increase in
number of farms
rural population
The North
40%
&
0.6%
&
3.9%
The South
50%
& 18.2%
— 14.8%
The West
66%
& 53.7%
& 49.7%
48%
& 10.9%
& 11.2%
(8) Concerning the number of women gainfully employed*
in agriculture (1910), the author (p. 27) believes their
number to be o v e r s t a t e d and e s t i m a t e s these figures
as the more p r o b a b l e: (p. 28)
total number of women engaged in agriculture: 1, 338, 950
instead of 1,807,050 (i.e.—468,100),
and total number of women engaged in a l l branches of
the economy, 7,607,67, instead of 8,075,77
(—468,100).
My 
addition: 
referring 
this 
entire 
overstatement
only to those working on the home farms, we have:
1,176,585—468,100 = 708,485÷441,055 = 166%&66%
* See p. 483.—Ed.

MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
Thus, according to the Occupation Statistics (see
p. 1 over)*
1 9 1 0
1 9 0 0 &
Total persons
occupied in
agriculture . .
12,099,825
10,381,765 &16%
**see No. 1 (below)
Farmers
. . .
5,981,522
5,674,875 & 5%
5,981,522
5,674,875
105.4
Hired labourers
2,566,966
2,018,213 &27%
2,566,966
2,018,213

(see p. 1 o v e r)
*see No. 2 (below)
I must say, on the whole, that American Occupation
Statistics are not worth a damn, for they say absolutely
nothing about the “status of person in industry” (and make
no distinction between the owner, the home-farm worker
and the hired labourer).
That is why their scientific value is almost nil.
N.B.
N.B.
Then they say nothing at all about collateral employ-
ment.
My totals are from p. 35 of the Statistical Abstract.
No. 1: & 16%, whereas the r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n =
& 11%. Why? Clearly, because of the increased
number of w o m e n employed.
No. 2: Σ expenditure for labour & 48%. Why?
Clearly, because poor f a r m e r s are also hired
(collateral employment).
* See pp. 482-83.—Ed.
** See p. 482.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

Occupation Statistics
Per cent distribution:
Total persons employed (10 years of age and > )
United States . . 38,167,336
33.2
2.5
27.9
6.9
9.5
1.2
4.4
9.9
4.6
New England . .
2,914,680
10.4
0.3
49.1
6.5
10.6
1.7
4.8
10.7
5.9
Middle Atlantic
8,208,885
10.0
4.2
40.6
8.0
12.0
1.4
4.9
11.8
7.1
East North Cen-
 tral
. . . . .
7,257,953
25.6
2.6
33.2
7.6
10.6
1.1
4.8
9.2
5.3
West North Cen-
 tral. . . . . .
4,449,043
41.2
1.8
20.0
7.8
10.4
1.1
5.2
8.5
3.9
South Atlantic .
5,187,729
51.4
1.8
18.6
5.0
5.1
1.0
3.0
10.5
2.6
East South Cen-
 tral
. . . . .
3,599,695
63.2
1.9
12.4
4.0
5.3
0.6
2.6
8.4
1.7
West South Cen-
 tral
. . . . .
3,507,081
60.1
0.7
12.6
5.2
7.0
0.8
3.3
8.1
2.1
Mountain. . . .
1,107,937
32.4
9.4
19.5
10.3
8.7
1.7
5.2
9.1
3.6
Pacific . . . . .
1,934,333
22.6
2.4
27.2
10.3
12.6
2.0
6.0
11.3
5.5
Written between
May 5 (18), 1914 and
December 29, 1915
(January 11, 1916)
First published in 1932
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XIX
Total persons occu-
pied
Agriculture, forest-
ry and animal hus-
bandry
Extraction of min-
erals
Manufacturing and
mechanical industry
Transportation
Trade
Public service
Professional service
Domestic and per-
sonal service
Clerical occupation

NOTES
AND
INDEXES


NOTES
This work was written in parts: the first nine chapters, from June
to September 1901 and the last three, in the autumn of 1907.
In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works, it appear-
ed in Vol. 5 (chapters I-IX) and in Vol. 13 (chapters X-XII);
in the Fifth edition of the Collected Works, the whole of it is in
Vol. 5. The present volume contains the preparatory material:
plans for and the contents of the work, critical remarks on the
writings of bourgeois economists and revisionists, and elaboration
and analysis of agricultural statistics.
The four variants of the plan in this volume reflect Lenin.’s elabo-
ration of the structure and content of “The Agrarian Question and
the ‘Critics of Marx’”. Lenin’s primary aim is to expose the general
theoretical views of the “critics”, the “law of diminishing returns”
as scientifically unsound and the theory of rent connected with
it, together with the Malthusian conclusions from both. He then
outlines a detailed critical analysis of bourgeois and revisionist writ-
ings on the key problems of agrarian theory and agrarian relations
(concentration of production in agriculture, machinery in agricul-
ture, etc.), and exposure of the “critics’” tenuous and scientifical-
ly dishonest methods of inquiry and use of factual material. Lenin
makes a special analysis of the statistical data and results of
monographic descriptions of agrarian relations in France, Germa-
ny and other countries for an examination of the actual processes
in agriculture, the capitalist system in contemporary agriculture
and a critique of bourgeois and revisionist writings.
The variants of the plan show the successive extension of the
range of questions and their content, and Lenin’s changes in the
order of the various points. Lenin repeatedly returned to the
fourth variant, the most elaborate and complete. There, the Roman
numerals of the eleven sections of the plan are in pencil, as are
also the additional notes to point 12: “the journal Nachalo (The
Beginning) I, pp. 7 and 13” and to point 21: “Latifundia. (Cf.
Hertz 15; Bulgakov II, 126, 190, 363)”. In point 12, beginning
with “No. 4, 141” and to the end of the paragraph and in the note
to this point (12) on the right, “Engels on Belgium, No. 10, 234”,
and also in the note to point 18, beginning with the words: “Bul-
gakov II, 289” and to the end of the paragraph, the words are
lightly crossed in pencil.
p. 29
For extracts and critical remarks on the books Bäuerliche Zustände
in Deutschland. Berichte, veröffentlicht vom Verein für Sozialpo-
litik. Bd. 1-3. Leipzig, 1883 (The Condition of the Peasants in

NOTES
Germany. Published by the Social Policy Association. Vols. 1,
2, 3) see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 166-80. Lenin used this mate-
rial in his work, “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’”
(see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 180-81, and Vol. 13, pp. 182-94).
Lenin’s remarks on Baudrillart’s book, Les populations agricoles
de la France. La Normandie (passé et présent) (The Agricultural
Population of France. Normandy (Past and Present), Paris, 1880.
See Lenin Miscellany XXXII, pp. 82-105. For Lenin’s remarks on
Baudrillart’s book, Les populations agricoles de la France. 3’e
série. Les populations du Midi, Paris, 1893 (The Agricultural
Population of France, Part III. The Population of the South) see
this volume pp. 258-59.
A reference to the distorted translation and wrong interpretation
of quotations from Frederick Engels’s The Peasant Question in
France and Germany in the Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia). See Lenin Miscel-
lany XIX, pp. 287-93.
p. 29
Lenin’s remarks on the book by Hugo Böttger, Die Sozialdemokratie
auf dem Lande, Leipzig, 1900 (Social-Democrats in the Countryside).
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 304-06.
p. 29
Iskra No. 3, April 1901, carried Lenin’s article “The Workers’
Party and the Peasantry”, which was an outline of the agrarian
programme of the R.S.D.L.P. (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 420-
28).
p. 29
For Lenin’s critique of P. Maslov’s anti-Marxist view of the
theory of rent, see present edition, Vol. 5, footnote on page 27.
p. 30
A reference to the book by P. Mack, Der Aufschwung unseres Land-
wirtschaftsbetriebes durch Verbilligung der Produktionskosten. Eine
Untersuchung über den Dienst, den Maschinentechnik und Elektri-
zität der Landwirtschaft bieten, Königsberg, 1900 (Boosting Our
Agricultural Production by Reducing the Costs of Production. An
Inquiry into the Services Rendered to Agriculture by Machinery
and Electricity).
p. 30
A reference to Kautsky’s article, “Die Elektrizität in der Land-
wirtschaft”. Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1900-1901, XIX. Jahrgang.
Band I, No. 18, S. 565-72 (“Electricity in Agriculture”, New Times,
Stuttgart, 1900-1901, XIXth year of publication, Vol. 1, No. 18,
pp. 565-72).
p. 30
In 1900, Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth), a journal of the
liberal Narodniks, carried a series of articles by V. Chernov under
the general title “Types of Capitalist and Agrarian Evolution”.
Lenin gave a critique of Chernov’s views in “The Agrarian Ques-


p. 29
p. 29

NOTES


tion and the ‘Critics of Marx’”. Here and below Lenin notes the
issues and pages of the journal with Chernov’s statements.
p. 30
Ireland was regarded as the example of a country of large landed
estates and small (“starvation”) leaseholdings, where tremendous
wealth existed side by side with dire poverty and recurring famines
a land from which masses of ruined farmers were in night. Bul-
gakov tried to cover up the poverty and the dying-out of the Irish
farmers with Malthusian arguments about a “surplus” population
and “shortage” of land, whereas the real reason lay in the monopoly
of the landed estates and the fierce exploitation of the small farm-
ers.
p. 30
In their preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto of
the Communist Party, Marx and Engels say this about landed
property in the United States: “Step by step the small and middle
landownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political
constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms”
(Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1962, p. 23). p. 31
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 159.
p. 31
Lenin’s remarks on Georges Blondel’s book, Études sur les
populations rurales de l’Allemagne et la crise agraire (Studies of the
Rural Population in Germany and the Agrarian Crisis), Paris, 1897.
See Lenin Miscellany XXXI, pp. 84-86.
p. 31
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 166-80.
p. 31
a3b—a pseudonym of P. N. Lepeshinsky.
p. 32
Lenin gave a critique of Bulgakov’s, “A Contribution to the Question
of the Capitalist Evolution of Agriculture” which appeared in the
journal of the Legal Marxists, Nachalo, Nos. 1-2 for 1899, in his
works “Capitalism in Agriculture” (present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105-
59) and “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’” (ibid.,
Vol. 5, pp. 103-222, and Vol. 13, pp. 169-216).
p. 33
Rentengüter—estates set up in Prussia and Poznan under laws
passed by the Prussian Landtag on April 26, 1886, June 27, 1890
and July 7, 1891, for the purpose of settling German peasants
in the eastern provinces of Germany. The establishment of these
estates was designed to strengthen German and weaken Polish
influence in these provinces and to assure the big landowners of
cheap labour. This involved the break-up of large landed estates
(sometimes bought from Polish landowners) into small and medium
tracts title to which was transferred to German peasants upon the
payment of the capital amount or the annual rent. When a settler
bought the land by paying the annual rent, he was restricted in
his disposal of it: he was not free, without government permission,
to divide the estate, sell it in parcels, etc.
p. 35